Appeal No. 2004-0180
Application No. 09/124,642
cited portion of the instant specification indicates merely that
“if the synchronization process receives seven consecutive idle 1
characters, it will enter the loss of sync state.” This is no
indication of any particular criticality in the use of seven, as
opposed to any other number of, successive idle 1 characters to
achieve resynchronization.
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 6, 7 and 13
(Group IV) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because these claims recite that
resynchronization “further includes detecting and transmitting an
idle 2 character” (claim 6) or that there is a detection and
transmission of “another set of predetermined characters after
detecting said set of predetermined characters” (claim 13).
While we agree with the examiner that the specific
characters employed in the method of resynchronization are of no
moment, so long as the function is the same, these claims require
two different types of characters. The examiner has pointed to
nothing within the references suggesting the use of two different
characters in a resynchronizing method. Thus, the claims require
three successive idle 1 characters and then an idle 2 character
in order to achieve resynchronization, and the examiner has not
identified what is being relied on in the references to suggest
the use of two different characters in this manner. The examiner
-9–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007