Appeal No. 1999-1558
Application No. 08/551,303
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3
through 9, 11 through 13, 15 through 19 and 22, and we will
reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 14, 20, 21 and 24.
Appellants argue (brief, page 7) that “[n]one of these
cited references [Kano and Abernethy], either singularly or in
combination, teach or suggest the claimed feature of ‘encoding
said input data words into code-words’ and ‘transmitting said
code words from said stylus to said host computer in a
continuous stream of packets’, where a continuous stream of
packets is defined to mean a stream of packets without any
framing information between
packets . . . .” The examiner counters (answer, page 3) that
“Kano teaches transferring data from a stylus to a host computer
(see Figures 7 and 8), comprising the steps of: trigger
generator 1 for providing input data words to be transferred
from the stylus to the host computer (see column 5, lines 51-
60); encoding input data words into code words (see figure 7 and
column 5, lines 51-55); transmitting code words from the stylus
in a continuous stream to a host computer (see figures 7, 11 and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007