Appeal No. 2000-1557
Application 08/384,456
With respect to claim 6, appellants argue that Blakeney
does not teach or suggest combining symbols from demodulated
signals as claimed. The examiner points to portions of Blakeney
which suggest combining symbols as claimed. Since the examiner’s
position in the response to arguments section of the answer is
persuasive, and since appellants have not specifically addressed
this response, we sustain this rejection of claim 6.
With respect to claim 10, appellants argue that Blakeney
does not teach the three different codes of claim 10. The
examiner responds by indicating how he reads the three codes on
the disclosure of Blakeney [answer, page 19]. Since this reading
of the examiner establishes a prima facie case of obviousness,
and since appellants do not respond to this specific reading of
the examiner, we sustain this rejection of claim 10.
With respect to claims 11-13, appellants argue that the
claimed combination of codes is not taught or suggested by
Blakeney. The examiner responds by explaining how the
combination of codes is specifically met by Blakeney [answer,
page 19-20]. Once again, this specific explanation by the
examiner establishes a prima facie case of obviousness which has
not been persuasively rebutted by appellants. Therefore, we
sustain this rejection of claims 11-13. With respect to claim
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007