Ex Parte Park et al - Page 3

              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               
                    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.            


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013