Appeal No. 1998-0291
Application 08/360,894
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants
and the Examiner, reference is made to the brief and answer
for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 17 under
the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting, however we will sustain the rejection of claims 1,
2, 7 through 10 and 15 through 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1 through 17
for obviousness-type double patenting, the Examiner contends
Doshi’s claims include all the limitations of the instant
claims with the exception of MF or bit borrowing in-band
signaling. The Examiner notes that page 2, lines 16-37 of the
present application states that MF and bit borrowing are well
known in the art and are widely implemented in present
systems.
(Answer-page 2.)
Appellants argue that Doshi claims only out-of-band
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007