Appeal No. 2001-0950
Application No. 08/534,855
22-24 are dependent on independent claims 2, 9, and 21, we also
cannot sustain the art rejections of these claims.
In regard to claim 25, Appellants argue that the references
do not teach or suggest a
method of operating a wireless subscriber station and a
wireless communication system having a base station in
which said base station controls a stream of message
blocks including a plurality of TEI messages
corresponding to respective ones of a plurality of said
subscriber stations . . . monitoring said communication
stream for TEI blocks; . . . and decoding said FEC bits
only when said BER is above a predetermined level.
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. See Appeal Brief, Page 13, line 23 and Page
14, lines 1-6. Upon review, we sustain the rejection of claim
25.
For claim 26, Appellants argue that the references do not
teach or suggest the requirement that the "BER is determined by
comparing known bits contained in a communication stream with
received bits from the communication stream." See Appeal Brief,
Page 14, lines 8-10. As pointed out above, we have found that
Stengel teaches a BER determined by comparing known bits
contained in a communication stream with received bits from the
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007