Appeal No. 1999-1558
Application No. 08/551,303
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 13 is sustained
because Kano discloses in an alternative embodiment (Figure 13)
a timer 72 for imparting timing information to encoded code
data.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 14 is reversed
because we agree with appellants’ argument (brief, page 13) that
“none of the cited references teach or suggest the claimed step
of ‘further encoding said code-words using a code which creates
a DC balanced stream of packets’.”
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 21 is reversed
because we agree with appellants’ argument (brief, page 13) that
“none of the cited references teach or suggest the claimed
feature of an exclusive-OR tree circuitry.”
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 24 is reversed
because we agree with appellants’ argument (brief, page 14) that
none of the cited references teach or would have suggested the
claimed “synchronization means for qualifying detected bit-
strings.”
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 3 through
9, 11 through 22 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed as
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007