Appeal No. 1999-1558
Application No. 08/551,303
column 6, lines 30-51).” We agree with the examiner’s
assessment of the teachings of Kano. With respect to
appellants’ arguments (brief, pages 7 through 9) that the
applied references teach the use of framing
information/delimiters, we find that appellants’ arguments are
not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention set forth
in claim 1. More importantly, claim 1 on appeal does not
preclude the use of framing information/delimiters. Appellants’
argument (brief, pages 9 and 10) that “there is no teaching or
suggestion of encoding input data words into code-words using a
selected code” is without merit since Kano uses a transfer code
in transfer code generator 3 to encode the pass code (column 5,
line 51 through column 6, line 8).
Based upon the foregoing, and the fact that appellants have
not challenged the examiner’s reasons for combining the
references, the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1 is
sustained. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 3 through
9, 11 through 14 and 22 is likewise sustained because appellants
have chosen to let these claims stand or fall with claim 1
(brief, page 5).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007