Appeal No. 2001-0950
Application No. 08/534,855
For claim 30, Appellants further argue that Stengel does not
teach or suggest "a plurality of TEI messages corresponding to
respective ones of a plurality of said subscriber stations" nor
"arranging the plurality of TEI messages in a continuous group
and for 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 8, lines 10-14.
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.
For claim 31, Appellants further argue that the claim
requires "decoding said FEC bits only when said BER is above a
predetermined level" and this is not taught by Stengel. See
Appeal Brief, Page 8, lines 15-16. 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 rejection of claim 31 based on the reasoning for
sustaining the rejection of claim 1.
We next turn to the rejection of claims 2, 4-18, 20, and 22-
27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlin in
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007