Appeal No. 1998-1105 Page 11
Application No. 08/300,599
Because Baker teaches varying a carrier frequency rather
than varying a baud rate, we are not persuaded that teachings
from the prior art would have suggested the limitations of
"the sending, by the transmitter, at another transmission
rate, of a correction message"; "the transmission, by the
transmitter, at another transmission rate, of a correction
message"; "said transmitter sends a new correction message ...
at a new transmission rate"; "retransmitting at least part of
the message, at a second bit rate which is lower than said
first bit rate"; or "retransmitting at least part of the
message ... at a second bit rate which is lower than said
first bit rate ...." The examiner fails to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we reverse the
rejections of claims 1-7 and 13-16 as obvious over Baker in
view of Clark further in view of Sargeant.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 1-7 and 13-16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Baker in view of Clark
further in view of Sargeant.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007