Appeal No. 2007-0329
Application No. 08/498,749
receiving element is “alerted” early in each transmission packet that an
uncorrectable error occurred during the transmission.
Page 4 of the Reply Brief makes reference to the Examiner’s repeated
use in the Answer of the absence of any argued unexpected results in
Appellants’ positions. Appellants are correct in indicating that this
requirement is only levied upon Appellants when the Examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness. Appellants do not present any
arguments to us if in fact the Examiner has presented a prima facie case of
obviousness, which we have so found. The Examiner’s basic conclusion of
the obviousness of the subject matter on appeal based upon the Admitted
Prior Art and Wasilewski according to the Examiner’s stated rejection that,
based upon the applied prior art, it clearly would have been obvious to have
modified the Admitted Prior Art alone within its own teachings as well as
within the teachings of Wasilewski to have moved the control field closer to
the head of the frame so that a bad frame can be detected faster or otherwise
earlier in the data flow, is correct.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner rejecting all
claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013