Appeal No. 2001-0950
Application No. 08/534,855
For claim 29, the Appellants argue that the Examiner has not
shown, a memory medium, said memory medium having stored thereon
a program for (1) operating a wireless subscriber station,
(2) controlling a base station and (3) communicating between said
base station and a plurality of wireless stations as required
respectively by the claims. Appellants further argue that the
claim requires "decoding said FEC bits only when said BER is
above a predetermined level" and the Stengel reference does not
show this. See Appeal Brief, Page 8, lines 5-9.
Upon review, we will sustain the rejection of claim 29 based
on the reasoning for sustaining the rejection of claim 1. 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. Also, the limitation of the claim in a memory medium is
taught by Stengel. In particular, Stengel teaches the use of a
digital communication system with a Smartnet central controller
manufactured by Motorola. See Stengel, Column 3, line 68 and
Column 4, line 1. This a computer having a memory medium storing
a program for (1) operating a wireless subscriber station, (2)
controlling a base station and (3) communicating between a base
station and a plurality of wireless stations. Therefore, we find
that Stengel teaches the above limitation recited in claim 29.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007