Appeal No. 2001-0950
Application No. 08/534,855
rejection of claim 19 based on the reasoning for sustaining the
rejection of claim 1.
For claim 21, Appellants argue that there is no teaching or
suggestion in Stengel that bit error rate could be determined by
"comparing known bits of TEI overhead messages with received bits
of the TEI overhead messages." See Appeal Brief, Page 7, lines
21-24. Upon review, we fail to find any evidence that Stengel
teaches or suggests the use of known bits of TEI overhead
messages.
For claim 28, Appellants further argue that there is no
teaching or suggestion in Stengel of "a transmission control
mechanism for arranging the plurality of TEI messages in a
continuous group" let alone of "beginning said group of TEI
messages with a unique TEI message and ending said group of TEI
messages with a second unique TEI message." See Appeal Brief,
Page 7, lines 19-26 and Page 8, lines 1-4. Upon review, we fail
to find any evidence that Stengel teaches or suggests a
transmission control mechanism for arranging the plurality of TEI
messages in a continuous group and for beginning the group of TEI
messages with a unique TEI message and ending the group of TEI
messages with a second TEI message.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007