Appeal No. 2004-0180
Application No. 09/124,642
synchronizing characters to synchronize the transmitter with the
receiver” (answer-page 6).
Appellants argue that the “mere fact that Jordan may teach
Idle 1 characters in general, does not make obvious the use of
three successive idle 1 characters as claimed” (brief-page 11).
We disagree. Appellants have not shown any criticality to the
use of “three,” as opposed to any other number of, idle 1
characters. Moreover, Sauer indicates, at column 3, lines 56-59,
that when “three successive pulses . . . are absent, a
synchronization loss is established . . . . ” This, taken
together with Jordan’s teaching of using idle 1 characters for
resynchronization purposes, would have suggested to the artisan
to use three successive idle 1 characters to determine
synchronization loss and/or resynchronization. In any event, the
specific number of successive idle 1 characters used would appear
to be a “design choice,” as asserted by the examiner. This is
especially so since no criticality has been ascribed by
appellants to the use of this specific number of idle 1
characters and appellants, themselves, indicate, at page 4 of the
instant specification, that while an idle 1 character is employed
by the instant invention, “any character may be employed.” Thus,
since Sauer teaches another “character” (i.e., a pulse), wherein
-7–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007