Ex Parte Thyssen et al - Page 3




          Appeal No. 2003-0774                                                        
          Application 09/841,764                                                      


          The examiner relies on the following references:                            
          Fujino et al. (Fujino)        5,436,899          July 25, 1995              
          Delargy et al. (Delargy)      6,029,127          Feb. 22, 2000              
          Rapeli                        6,182,032          Jan. 30, 2001              
          Kazunori Mano et al. (Mano), “Design of a Pitch Synchronous                 
          Innovation CELP Coder for Mobile Communications,” IEEE Journal On           
          Selected Areas In Communications, Vol. 13, No. 1, January 1995,             
          pages 31-41.                                                                
          Giuseppe Caire, “CDMA System Design Through Asymptotic Analysis,”           
          Global Telecommunications Conference-Globecom ‘99, Vol. 5,                  
          December 1999, pages 2456-2460.                                             
          Sae-Young Chung et al. (Chung), “Multilevel RS/Convolutional                
          Concatenated Coded QAM for Hybrid IBOC-AM Broadcasting,” IEEE               
          Transactions On Broadcasting, Vol. 46, No. 1, March 2000, pages             
          49-59.                                                                      
          The following rejections are on appeal before us:                           
          1. Claims 21-35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)                     
          as being unpatentable over the teachings of Rapeli in view of               
          Delargy.                                                                    
          2. Claims 36 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                          
          § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Rapeli in              
          view of Fujino.                                                             
          3. Claims 38-44 and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                       
          § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Rapeli.                
          4. Claims 47 and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                          
          § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Rapeli in              
          view of Fujino.                                                             

                                         -3-                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007