Appeal No. 1998-2992
Application No. 08/539,276
via cable 132 by delay element 150 for one chip duration
(column 9, lines 11 through 28).
Dean never compares the time duration of “one chip
duration” to the time period needed to transmit the noted
signal. Without a comparison of the two time periods, we have
no way of knowing whether the first transmission of the signal
via cable 132 ends before the start of the second transmission
of the signal via delay element 150 and cable 130. As a
result thereof, we can not agree with the examiner’s
conclusion that the two signals are not simultaneously
transmitted.
In summary, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims
14, 15, 23, 43, 44, 52, 53, 72, 73, 81, 101, 102, 110 and 111
is reversed because we will not resort to speculation as to
the teachings of Dean.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 16 through 22,
45 through 51, 54 through 56, 58, 74 through 80, 103 through
109, 112 through 114, 116 and 139 through 194 are reversed
because the teachings of Leppanen and the so-called admitted
prior art do not cure the noted shortcoming in the teachings
of Dean.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007