Appeal No. 1998-2974
Application No. 08/524,106
Claims 17, 19, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Darden in view of Hanle and
Larkey.
Claims 25 through 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Darden in view of Rhee.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 29,
mailed April 14, 1998) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to appellants' Brief (Paper
No. 28, filed March 23, 1998) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 31,
filed August 13, 1998) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse both the anticipation rejection of
claims 14, 18, 22, and 24 and also the obviousness rejections
of claims 17, 19, 21, and 25 through 27.
Independent claims 14 and 24 recite "transmitting an
output signal comprising an estimate of the content of the
input signal . . . said estimate comprising more than one
approximation of the input signal." Similarly, independent
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007