Appeal No. 2000-0330 Page 7
Application No. 08/684,871
respectively, are compared.” (Spec. at 5.) In describing a
second method for determining a shift, it further discloses that
“the information fields of these [OAM] cells are compared.” (Id.
at 7.) We are persuaded that one skilled in the art would
understand that the limitations, when read in light of the
specification, require different types of cells, including data
cells and OAM cells, and comparing cells of the same type to each
other. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 18-37 as
indefinite. We proceed to the anticipation and obviousness
rejections.
II. Anticipation and Obviousness Rejection
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or
appellant in toto, we address the main point of contention
therebetween. The examiner asserts, "the message cells in a
slower path are determined to be delayed if the calculated
difference of receiving cells in two paths is larger than the
threshold." (Examiner's Answer at 9.) The appellant argues,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007