Appeal No. 97-2757
Application No. 08/412,260
In response to the second argument, see for
example the abstract lines, 16-20 and column 3, line
65 to column 4, line 2. It clearly states that a
signal (an inhahit [sic, inhibit] signal) is
generated to indicate that the incoming signal is
solely noise and that the data processing channel is
inhibited from processing the signal. The only
pulses which will be accepted for processing are
those which have been first identified by the
initial start pulse. Furthermore, even though
Norman is silent whether the noise is a random noise
or not, it is clear from the drawing the noise is
not a continues [sic, continuous] noise. Therefore
it is a random noise. Thus, the noise assessment
(an inhabit [sic, inhibit] signal) that is generated
by the noise detection circuit is to indicate that
the detected signal is solely random noise.
Norman shows (Figure 2A) that the start pulse 12 is part
of the input data pulses, and he specifically states (column
1, lines 54 through 58) that the “circuit . . receives data
characters, each of which begins with a start pulse,” and that
the “circuit receives . . . trains of data pulses, each train
including a start pulse” (column 1, lines 63 through 67).
Thus, the examiner correctly concluded that the start pulse is
part of the data in Norman, and that Norman distinguishes
between data and noise.
Appellant’s argument (Brief, page 7) that Norman “does
not suggest making the noise assessment while receiving a data
stream” is directly refuted by Figure 2 of Norman’s drawing.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007