Reexamination Control No. 90/005,742
Patent 5,253,341
1 received from a high-speed modem that is in a high-speed path to a data
2 processing center. Oftentimes these concentrators are very sophisticated
3 and an apparently large concentration can occur at such a point.
4
5 Kandell, col. 2, l. 54 to col. 3, l. 5. We understand the examiner's position to be that it would
6 have been obvious in view of the above teaching to replace (a) the transceiver (i.e., low-speed
7 modem) 122 in Yurt’s Figure 2b transmission system that is connected via a plurality of
8 standard, low-speed telephone lines to respective reception systems 200 with (b) a high-speed
9 modem connected via a high-speed communication line to a high-speed modem in a remotely
10 located concentrator that communicates with the reception systems via low-speed modems and
11 low-speed telephone lines.
12 Dr. Koopman argues (2d Koopman Decl. at 173, para. 368) that the succeeding paragraph
13 in Kandell, quoted below, teaches way from using a concentrator in a conventional voice
14 telephony system:
15 However, in many applications the actual concentration is less than
16 40:1. Moreover, this approach is not readily adapted for application to
17 conventional, voice telephony. The high speed data networ[k]s require
18 specially conditioned telephone lines that are expensive to utilize, and the
19 required modems are expensive. The modems produce or respond to
20 carriers held to a finite fr[e]quency band and digital processing circuits
21 are, in effect, independent switches that can become quite complex and
22 expensive. In addition, even if readily adapted to a telephony network, the
23 economic benefit of substituting this type of a concentrator network at a
24 remote location in a telephony system would not be economically justified
25 by the cabling savings that would otherwise be provided.
26
27 Kandell, col. 3, ll. 6-20. The examiner responded to this criticism by asserting that “Kandell’s
28 teaching is [that] in [a] remote area it is not economically viable, not [that] in general [it is not
29 viable],” Final Action at 202-03, para. 368; Answer at 201, para. 368, a reasonable interpretation
- 53 -
Page: Previous 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007