Appeal 2007-0466
Application 10/209,114
Nystrom’s description at column 11. The reference describes analyzing a
condition of a receiving channel because determiner 44 (Nystrom Figs. 1
and 5) determines if a received transmission can be adequately decoded
(meaning that channel conditions are of acceptable quality), or if additional
decoding steps are required (meaning that channel conditions are of
relatively poor quality). Subsequent to the initial analysis of whether a
signal can be adequately decoded, determiner 44 next determines an iterative
decoding number (e.g., Y or Z) consistent with that analysis.
Appellants seem to suggest (Req. for Reh’g 3) that the claims are
thought to distinguish over “preset” iterative decoding numbers. We can
assume that numbers Y and Z in Nystrom are “preset” in the sense that a
number Y or a number Z is determined, during normal operation, by
determiner 44 determining whether a “preset” number Y or a “preset”
number Z is appropriate. If Appellants’ remarks in the Request reflect a
position that the claims distinguish over “preset” iterative decoding
numbers, separate from considerations with respect to channel condition,
Appellants do not point out where that argument was presented in the
Appeal Brief or Reply Brief. In any event, we find nothing in representative
claim 26 (or claim 12) that would preclude “preset” iterative decoding
numbers.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we have granted Appellants’ request for rehearing to the
extent that we have reconsidered our decision sustaining the rejection of
claims 12-16 and 26-28, but we decline to modify the decision in any way.
DENIED
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013