Appeal No. 1997-1232
Application No. 08/182,035
recovery of timing information from only the parts of the
signal so identified.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Weber 4,520,492 May 28,
1985
Carmon 5,200,981 Apr. 06,
1993
(Effectively filed Aug. 07,
1990)
Claims 1, 2, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Weber. Claims 1, 2, and 23 3
further stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Carmon.4
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs and Answers for the 5
respective details thereof.
3As correctly noted by Appellant on page 1 of the Brief,
the third word “of” in the preamble of claim 1 was
inadvertently omitted in the amendment filed January 6, 1995.
4The 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection based on Carmon was set
forth as a new ground of rejection in the Examiner’s Answer.
5The Appeal Brief was filed October 3, 1995. In response
to the Examiner’s Answer dated February 8, 1996, a Reply Brief
was filed April 4, 1996. The Examiner entered the Reply Brief
and submitted a Supplemental Examiner’s Answer on July 11,
1996. A Supplemental Reply Brief filed by Appellant on July
31, 1996 was acknowledged and entered by the Examiner without
further comment on October 30, 1996.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007