Appeal No. 2004-0180
Application No. 09/124,642
suggested to the artisan a specific resynchronization technique
to be used in order to recover synchronization after a loss of
reception in Sauer.
Accordingly, we find that the examiner has established a
prima facie case of obviousness which has not been successfully
rebutted by appellants since appellants have not convinced us of
any error in the examiner’s rationale.
The rejection of claims 1, 7-10 and 16-19 (Group I) under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is sustained.
We will also sustain the rejection of claims 5, 9, 12 and 14
(Group II) under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
These claims provide for detection and transmission of
“three successive idle 1 characters.” The examiner turns to
Jordan, at page 1191, for a teaching of a “string of idle
characters . . . sufficient to permit complete resynchronization”
in a method for synchronizing transmitters and receivers. The
examiner concluded, quite reasonably in our view, that, in view
of such a teaching, it would have been obvious to use any
character set, including idle 1 characters, as synchronization
characters “because synchronization characters are simply a
combination set of non-data characters which are designed to be
conventionally recognized by transmitter and receiver as
-6–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007