Appeal No. 1999-1697
Application No. 08/550,270 Page 3
a memory storing software for instructing said programmable
digital signal processor to generate an analog data stream, a
digital data stream or both; and
a plurality of transceivers responsive to signals provided
by the single digital signal processor to transmit one or all of
the data streams.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Hartley et al. (Hartley) 4,868,863 Sep. 19, 1989
Erhard et al. (Erhard) 5,165,022 Nov. 17, 1992
Blackwell et al. (Blackwell) 5,598,401 Jan. 28, 1997
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9-11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 21-23, and 25 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Hartley in view of Blackwell.
Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20, and 24 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hartley in view of
Blackwell and further in view of Erhard.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellants regarding the above-noted rejections,
we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 17, mailed
September 29, 1998) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellants' brief1 (Paper No.
14, filed July 21, 1998) and reply brief (Paper No. 19, filed
1 We observe that a substantially complete copy of claim 10 appears in
the appendix to appellants brief. On line 23, “according” should reads as “in
response” (See Paper No. 6, filed September 8, 1997).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007