Appeal No. 1999-1857
Application No. 08/579,156
and “determine[s]” and how the system would do this to produce a lock signal.
Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Appellant argues that the examiner’s analysis is deficient. We disagree. Rather,
appellant’s arguments clearly go into much greater detail that the language of claim 1
supports. Therefore, appellant’s arguments are not supported by the express language
of the claims and are not persuasive. Since appellant has not rebutted the examiner’s
rejection, we will sustain the rejection of claim 1. Since appellant has not separately
argued the rejections of claims 2-5, 8, 9, and 12-15, we will similarly sustain the
rejection of these claims.
With respect to claim 6, appellant argues that the operational characteristics of the
loop filter in claim 6 are not taught by the combination of Citta and Scarpa. (See brief at
page 11 and reply brief at pages 4-5.) We agree with appellant. The examiner goes
through a lengthy analysis of the characteristics but does not arrive at the same
equations. Furthermore, the examiner does not provide a convincing line of reasoning
why one skilled in the art would have desired the use of the characteristics, as claimed.
Therefore, the examiner’s rationale is not persuasive, and we cannot sustain the
rejection of dependent claim 6.
With respect to claim 7, appellant relies upon the argument that the combination of
Citta and Scarpa does not teach or suggest the symbol timing lock signal as argued
with respect to claim 1. (See reply brief at page 6 and brief at page 12.) This argument
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007