Appeal 2007-0843
Application 09/725,393
different size encoder sub-packets wherein the original encoder packet may
be derived from each of the encoder sub-packets (Specification, p. 6, ll. 18-
20). Therefore, we find Appellants are reading limitations into the claims
(i.e., that “puncturing” requires dropping bits). We conclude the scope of the
recited “puncturing” limitation broadly but reasonably encompasses
Bruckman’s input packets that are broken up or fragmented (i.e., punctured)
into multiple fragments or subpackets (see Bruckman, ¶ 0026).
Thus, we find the argued limitations 2 broadly but reasonably
encompass Bruckman’s teaching that an input packet exceeding a
determined fragment size triggers the operation of “fragmenter 28” that
divides the packet into multiple fragments where the fragment size is based
on the variable rate of transmission (¶ 0026). In particular, we agree with
the Examiner’s observation that Bruckman’s output fragments (i.e., sub-
packets) are based entirely on the size of the input packet when the input
packet does not exceed the determined fragment size. We note that
Bruckman also teaches the size of the fragments is based on the variable rate
of transmission over the data channel (¶ 0026). Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner that Bruckman teaches and/or suggests: “puncturing and/or
repeating the channel coded encoder packet to produce a first encoder sub-
packet having a first size based on a size of the encoder packet and a first
data transmission rate at which the first encoder sub-packet is to be
transmitted” (claim 1).
2 “puncturing and/or repeating the channel coded encoder packet to
produce a first encoder sub-packet having a first size based on a size of the
encoder packet and a first data transmission rate at which the first encoder
sub-packet is to be transmitted” (claim 1).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013