Appeal No. 2004-0180
Application No. 09/124,642
reception to the transmission of the first end, and vice-versa.
The teachings of the applied references, along with the
examiner’s rationale, in our view, establishes a prima facie case
of obviousness, shifting the burden to appellants to provide
evidence, in the form of persuasive argument, or objective
evidence, to overcome such prima facie case.
Appellants argue that while both references may discuss
resynchronization when synchronization is lost, unlike the
instant invention, neither reference discusses resynchronization
when “reception” is lost; and neither reference distinguishes
between loss of reception and loss of synchronization.
We disagree. Sauer explicitly teaches a synchronization or
resynchronization being required after certain conditions, one of
those conditions being “an interruption and reconnection to the
transmission path” (column 3, lines 12-13). An
“interruption...to the transmission path” clearly indicates a
“loss of reception.” Contrary to appellants’ assertion,
manifestly, Sauer does discuss resynchronization when reception
is lost. Olafsson teaches a specific measure to be taken when
resynchronization is to be performed, i.e., the transmission of a
repetition of a known set of symbols until synchronization is
regained. Thus, the combination of Sauer and Olafsson would have
-5–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007