Ex Parte RAMESH et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2004-0991                                                        
          Application No. 09/152,063                                                  

               The disclosed invention relates to a method of determining the         
          most likely rate at which a received signal was encoded from among          
          a plurality of predetermined postulated rates.                              
               Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads         
          as follows:                                                                 
          1.  A receiver comprising:                                                  
               means for receiving a signal;                                          
               means for determining a rate at which the received signal was          
          encoded; and                                                                
          means for decoding the received signal based on the rate                    
          detected, wherein said rate is determined by comparing a received           
          signal with a number of estimated signals, said estimated signal            
          being based on possible rates of encoding, and determining a                
          correlation between the received signals and the estimated signals.         
               The reference relied on by the examiner is:                            
          Stein               6,175,590                Jan. 16, 2001                  
                                             (filed Aug.  8, 1997)                    
               Claims 25 through 27, 29 through 37, 39, 40, 42 through 46 and         
          48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by          
          Stein.                                                                      
               Reference is made to the supplemental brief and reply brief            
          (paper numbers 23 and 25) and the answer (paper number 24) for the          
          respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.                    



                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007