Appeal No. 2004-1579
Application No. 09/496,549
and appellant has not shown good cause why it was not earlier submitted, this evidence
is not properly admissible at this point in the proceeding. 37 CFR § 1.195.
In any case, while the Newton Telecom Dictionary definition states that a classic
line termination device is a NT1 at the user side of the interface, this definition does not
state that the NT1 device is the only device that can be considered a termination device.
Likewise, the Verizon definition, while stating that certain equipment is considered a
line termination, does not state that the devices described are the only devices that can
be considered a termination device.
. Appellant also directs out attention to appellant’s specification and notes that the
specification discloses that a basic rate interface, a remote line termination unit, a
remote data terminal, a subsriber line interface circuit operate as termination units.
However, while we may agree with the appellant that the following devices are disclosed
and may be considered termination devices, it is our opinion, as we stated at pages 3
and 4 of our decision, that the term “termination device” is a broad term that includes
both the devices disclosed by the appellant and the splitter described in McHale.
Appellant also argues that the termination in McHale occurs after splitter 50. We
will not consider this argument as it is being made for the first time in this request for
rehearing which is limited to the points overlooked or misapprehended in the original
decision. As this argument was not made in the brief or the reply brief, it could not have
been overlooked or misapprehended.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007