Appeal No. 1999-1857
Application No. 08/579,156
Citta 5,283,653 Feb. 1, 1994
Scarpa 5,388,127 Feb. 7, 1995
Claims 1-9 and 11-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Citta in view of Scarpa.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 13, mailed Feb. 3, 1999) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 11, filed Oct. 19, 1998) and reply
brief (Paper No. 14, filed Apr. 5, 1999) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellant argues that the frequency control signal output by the timing recovery
circuit in Scarpa is not related to the symbol timing lock signal. (See brief at page 6.)
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007