Appeal No. 1998-0291
Application 08/360,894
(brief-bottom of page 5 to top of page 6), Appellants recite a
list of details, (a) through (f) that are allegedly missing in
the cited art. We note first, this not considered an argument
in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.192 (8)(iv). Second, half of
these claims are not even subject to the art rejection. Thus,
we can not relate this list to the rejected claims, and even
if we could, a mere list of claimed limitations is not
considered an argument. Thus, we will also sustain the
rejection of claims 2, 7, 8, 15 and 16.
With regard to the rejection of claims 9 and 17, the
Examiner notes that “bit borrowing” is well known and
acknowledged by Appellants as prior art. Appellants have not
contested this. Appellants argue that bit borrowing has not
been shown to be used in their claimed way, in an ATM/STM
interface (brief-page 7). Without any showing of
incompatibility, we see nothing to rebut the Examiner’s
reasoning that bit borrowing, which is in-band STM (and
claimed as such), will adapt to SS7 out-of-band STM, and then
be adapted to out-of-band ATM. Thus, we will sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 9 and 17.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007