Appeal No. 2001-0950
Application No. 08/534,855
view of Stengel. For claim 2, Appellants argue that Dahlin and
Stengel fail to teach "unique TEI messages differ from all other
TEI messages by at least six characters eliminating the necessity
of decoding the plurality of FEC bits." See Appeal Brief, Page
9, lines 7-8. For claim 9, Appellants argue that the references
fail to teach "unique TEI messages differ from all other TEI
messages by at least six characters." See Appeal Brief, Page 10,
line 23 and Page 11, line 1. For claim 20, Appellants argue that
the claim requires "a transmission control mechanism for
arranging the plurality of TEI messages in a continuous group,
and beginning said group of TEI with a unique TEI message and
ending said group of TEI messages with a second unique TEI
message where said unique TEI messages differ from all other TEI
messages by ate [sic] least six characters." See Appeal Brief,
Page 12, lines 22-23 and Page 13, lines 1-3.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ 1443,
1444 (Fed Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed Cir. 1984). The Examiner can
satisfy this burden by showing that some objective teaching in
the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007