Appeal No. 2004-1573 Page 4
Application No. 09/494,780
Claims 1-4, 6, 9, and 11-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,511,068 ("Sato").
OPINION
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we
focus on the main point of contention therebetween. "The examiner references Sato,
Figure 7 and column 9 lines 18 to 34," (Examiner's Answer at 10), and concludes, "It is
very clear from the above that Sato utilizes a training sequence that is common for each
connection and different from all other connections." (Id. at 10-11.) The appellants
argue, "Sato discloses (see col. 9, lines 26-29) that the training signal series
differentiates a plurality of channels within the same time slot ('a common time slot
TM')." (Reply Br. at 2.)
In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe claims at issue to determine their scope. Second, we determine
whether the construed claims are anticipated.
1. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
"Analysis begins with a key legal question — what is the invention claimed?"
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007