Appeal No. 2001-1850 Page 4
Application No. 08/675,893
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-17, 19-21, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 5,583,851 ("Kato") in view of Qualcomm Inc.
("Qualcomm"), An Overview of the Application of Code Division Multiple Access
(CDMA) To Digital Cellular Systems and Personal Cellular Networks. (May 21, 1992).
Claims 22 and 23 stand rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over Kato. Claims 26 and
27 stand rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over Kato in view of the appellants'
admitted prior art ("AAPA").
OPINION
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or appellants in toto, we
address the main points of contention therebetween. Admitting that "Kato does not
teach channel coding and interleaving of the data in their CDMA system," (Final
Rejection at 62), the examiner concludes, "it would have been an obvious choice in
design in choosing between a common channel coder and interleaver or a plurality of
channel coders and interleavers, wherein the factors to consider are the reduced cost
and size of using one common channel coder and interleaver versus the speed and
simple interconnections of using a plurality." (Id. at 7.) Admitting that "Kato teaches the
means for splitting the high-speed data signal (separating circuit 24 in Figure 6) located
2We advise the examiner to copy his rejections into his examiner's answers
rather than merely referring to a "rejection . . . set forth in prior Office Action."
(Examiner's Answer at 3.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007