Appeal No. 1997-3854
Application No. 08/414,824
The examiner maintains that this argument is not persuasive since appellant has provided
no evidence of prior conception and/or reduction to practice. (See answer at page 4.) We
agree with the examiner.
Appellant argues that Newhall does additional functions which are not addressed in
the present invention whereas “[a]ppellant conserves bandwidth (increase data rate) only;
a distortionless channel or one that is otherwise corrected is presumed by Appellant.”
(See brief at pages 6-7.) The examiner maintains that the composing function of Newhall
is used in a similar manner as the keying function and “the fact that Newhall’s [disclosed]
invention accomplishes functions in addition to those claimed in the instant application is
irrelevant.” (See answer at page 5.) We agree with the examiner.
Appellant sets forth a discussion of a great number of functions which appellant
associates with claim 1. (See brief at page 7.) We disagree with appellant’s
characterization of the claimed invention. We find that many of the recited functions are not
explicitly recited or fairly supported by the language of claims 1 and 10.
Appellant argues that the system of Newhall uses analog devices and processing.
Appellant cites no express support for this argument. (See brief at pages 7-8.) The
examiner cites to a number of locations in the text of Newhall which strongly imply or
suggest digital operation. (See answer at page 6.) We agree with the examiner that
Newhall is digitally-based. The examiner further advances that even if Newhall were
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007