Appeal 2007-0843
Application 09/725,393
respect to this rejection have treated these claims as a single group which
stand or fall together, we will select independent claim 1 as the
representative claim for this rejection because it is the broadest independent
claim in this group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Appellants argue that Bruckman fails to teach or suggest at least
puncturing and/or repeating channel coded packets to produce a first sub-
packet based on a size of the encoder packet, as set forth in claim 1.
Appellants argue that Bruckman at most discloses the fragmenting (i.e.,
dividing) of packets into pieces based on a transmission rate over a channel,
where the optimal fragment length is based on considerations of overhead
and maximum permitted delay. Appellants argue the actual size of the
datagram received at the transmitter front end merely triggers the
fragmenting of a received datagram and is not used in determining the size
of the packet fragments. Appellants acknowledge that when an input packet
from “sources 26” exceeds a determined fragment size, “fragmenter 28”
divides the packet for transmission into multiple fragments (see Bruckman, ¶
0026, ll. 9-11). Nevertheless, Appellants conclude that the input packet size
is not used in determining the size of the packet fragments (Br. 15-16).
In the Reply Brief, Appellants further argue that the fragmenting of
Bruckman does not constitute the recited “puncturing” (claim 1). Appellants
argue the claimed “puncturing” involves dropping bits (id.). Appellants
assert that Bruckman merely teaches fragmenting or slicing an input
fragment into multiple smaller fragments (Reply Br. 3).
In response, the Examiner agrees that the size of the sub-packets in
Bruckman is based on the transmission frequency. However the Examiner
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013