Appeal No. 2000-1900
Application No. 08/669,937
arguments which assert the alleged distinction between his “soft”
decision decoding and the “hard” decision decoding of the applied
prior art. We find such arguments to be unpersuasive for all of
the reasons discussed supra.
We next consider the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejections of independent claim 7, the representative claim for
Appellant’s suggested grouping (including claims 7 and 9-11), and
independent claim 17, the representative claim for the group
including claims 17-21, based on the combination of McConnell in
view of Boyd or, in the alternative, Hassan in view of Boyd. We
sustain these rejections as well. In response to the rejection,
Appellant initially contends (Brief, page 16) that McConnell
lacks a teaching or suggestion of application of concatenated
coding schemes to TDMA channels. Further Appellant asserts (id.)
that, unlike the present claimed invention, McConnell “ . . .
performs a second coding of the first coded bits and the original
data to generate second coded bits.” In addition, McConnell is
attacked by Appellant as failing to teach the use of a threshold
mathematical distance in performing soft decisions, while Boyd is
asserted as lacking a disclosure of the correction of erasures as
claimed. (Id.)
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007