Appeal No. 2005-0171
Application No. 10/064,380
invention, Waraksa does not disclose any structure which would
detect “each sync sequence in the received data sequence,” the data
sequence “possibly including false-sync sequences.”
After reviewing the Waraksa reference in light of the
arguments of record, we are in general agreement with Appellants’
position as expressed in the Brief. We agree with Appellants that
Waraksa has no disclosure of any structure which would distinguish
between a genuine sync sequence and a false-sync sequence since
Waraksa avoids the possibility of false-sync sequences appearing in
the data sequence by attaching a SYNC pattern to the beginning of
the Miller encoded code word.
We recognize that the Examiner has taken the position (Answer,
pages 10 and 11) that the “false-sync sequence” limitation is not a
positive limitation and is in effect an alternative language
limitation which need not be given patentable weight. We find no
basis for the Examiner interpreting the claim language in this
manner. The “false-sync sequence” language is indeed a positive
limitation since it establishes conditions and an environment in
which the claimed data sequence and preamble identifying functions
must operate.
We further disagree with the Examiner (Answer, page 11) that
the “false-sync sequence” language can be given no patentable
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007