Appeal No. 2004-0180
Application No. 09/124,642
the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the
arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ
685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments
actually made by appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which appellant could have made but chose not to make
in the brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived
[see 37 CFR 1.192 (a)].
With regard to the independent claims, e.g., claim 1, the
examiner asserts that Sauer teaches, at column 3, lines 12-13,
the conditions under which synchronization or resynchronization
is required in a communication system; that Olafsson discloses,
in the same field of endeavor, at column 11, lines 8-50, that
upon a loss of synchronization between two ends (modems), a
repetition of a known set of symbols (predetermined characters)
is transmitted from one end to the other end until
synchronization is regained; and that it would have been obvious,
upon loss of reception, to repeatedly transmit a sequence of
known characters from one end of the communication network to the
other end, in order to receive the known characters and, based on
the recognition of the known characters, synchronize its
-4–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007