Appeal No. 2006-0439
Application 09/765,754
appears to indicate that they are merely adjacent bits at the top of page 5 of the
principal brief on appeal. Therefore, it appears plain to us that any serial teachings of
data bits within a characterized class of bits as well as any parallel characterization of
plurality of bits forming the claimed class of bits in Fazel would meet the limitation.
The data stream 34 in figure 3 of Fazel appears to correspond to the claimed
data stream from our prospective as well as the examiner’s approach. Each of the
respective levels D in figure 3 of Fazel at the output of the serial/parallel converter 30
would appear to us to be in the form of parallel data, which clearly falls within the
ambit of the contiguous or otherwise adjacent bits as argued and claimed
notwithstanding the questionable bases in which this feature is recited as derived from
the specification as filed. Contiguous is not a term used in the specification as filed in
any manner to describe the bit stream or the nature of the bit arrangement of the
classes of bits.
The examiner’s responsive arguments beginning at page 14 of the answer
appear to be consistent with our study of this reference, that is, that a parallel bit
stream for each separate data rate or level D is parallel data. The use of separate
encoders 31 in figure 3 of this reference clearly indicates that there are separate classes
or levels of coding to be undertaken before the modulator 32 performs its function to
the extent Fazel teaches multilevel coding of an information data stream. We
therefore agree with the examiner’s observation that appellants’ characterization in the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007