Appeal No. 2001-0950
Application No. 08/534,855
lines 3-7, Stengel teaches that signal quality of the received
signals can be determined by comparing the bit error rates of the
incoming signals to a predetermined rate threshold. Step (c) of
claim 1 recites "decoding said FEC bits only when said BER is
above a predetermined level." See Appeal Brief, Page 16, line
11. In column 8, lines 37-45, Stengel teaches the decoding of
incoming information signals (outbound signaling word or OSW), if
the quality of the received signals is at least as good as the
stored value. Therefore, we find that Stengel teaches steps (b)
and (c) as recited in Appellants' claim 1.
For claim 3, Appellants argue that this claim contains the
further limitation that the "BER is determined by comparing known
bits of TEI overhead messages with received bits of the TEI
overhead messages." See Appeal Brief, Page 5, line 19-20. Upon
review, we fail to find any evidence that Stengel teaches or
suggests the use of known bits of TEI overhead messages.
For claim 19, Appellants argue that Stengel does not teach
or suggest "a decoder for decoding said FEC bits only when said
BER is above a predetermined level." See Appeal Brief, Page 6,
lines 1-2. As pointed out above, we have found that Stengel
teaches a decoder for decoding FEC bits only when the BER is
above a predetermined level. Upon review, we will sustain the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007