Appeal No. 2001-0950
Application No. 08/534,855
communication stream. Upon review, we sustain the rejection of
claim 26.
For claim 27, Appellants argue that the references do not
teach or suggest the requirement that "the BER is determined by
comparing known bits of TEI overhead messages with received bits
of TEI overhead messages." See Appeal Brief, Page 14, lines 12-
13. Upon review, we fail to find any evidence that Stengel
teaches or suggests the use of known bits of TEI overhead
messages.
In conclusion, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 19, 29,
and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claims 25 and 26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. We cannot sustain the rejection of claims 3,
21, 28 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and 2, 4-18, 20, 22-24, and 27
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 .
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007