Appeal No. 2003-0663
Application No. 09/072,549
Claims 1-5, 7-15, 17-25 and 27-31 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as relying on a non-enabling
disclosure.
Claims 1-5, 7, 12-15, 17, 21-25 and 27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner offers
Verhoeckx with regard to claims 1, 12-14 and 21; Tompkins in view
of Verhoeckx with regard to claims 1-5, 12-15 and 21-25; and adds
Ramanathan to this latter combination with regard to claims 7, 17
and 27. Further, the examiner offers Tompkins, Verhoeckx,
Ramanathan and Rangan with regard to claims 8, 18 and 28.
Tompkins, Verhoeckx, Ramanathan and Stefik are offered with
regard to claims 9-11, 19, 20 and 29-31.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
Turning first to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, it is the examiner’s position that the claims rely on
a non-enabling disclosure because the claims call for the
transmission of “TV quality” video signals over UTP communication
paths and, in the examiner’s view, the instant disclosure would
not have enabled the skilled artisan to transmit such signals
without undue experimentation.
-4–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007