Appeal 2007-0843
Application 09/725,393
independent claim. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089,
1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of these claims as being unpatentable over Bruckman in view of Tiedemann,
and further in view of Buchholz for the same reasons discussed supra with
respect to the rejection of independent claim 1 as being unpatentable over
Bruckman in view of Tiedemann.
Claims 8 and 12
Lastly, we consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 12 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Bruckman in view of AAPA, and
further in view of Tiedemann, and further in view of Buchholz.
Appellants argue the Examiner’s alleged taking of “Official Notice”
fails to provide the necessary motivation for incorporating what the
Examiner considers as “well known” into the system disclosed by Bruckman
(Br. 22).
Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, we find the Examiner has not
taken “Official Notice” in formulating the rejections of claims 8 and 12 (see
Answer 5, see also MPEP § 2144.03). In contrast, the Examiner, as finder
of fact, has found Bruckman teaches transmitting fragments based upon their
individual transmission rates (see Answer 5). The Examiner has further
found that Bruckman expressly teaches modulating the data (see Bruckman,
¶ 0028, i.e., “modems”). The Examiner points out that “modem” stands for
modulator/demodulator (see Answer 5).
Therefore, we see no deficiencies with respect to Bruckman as
modified by Tiedemann, as discussed supra. We have found the teachings
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013