Appeal 2007-1537
Application 09/916,903
PRIOR ART
The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the appealed claims are:
ELENBAAS US 2005/0028194 A1 Feb. 3, 2005
(Eff. Filing date Dec. 23, 1998)
BARTON US 6,233,389 B1 May 15, 2001
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-171 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Elenbaas in view of Barton.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
Examiner and the Appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make
reference to the Examiner's Answer (mailed Nov. 29, 2006) for the
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to Appellants’ Brief (filed
Oct. 30, 2006) and Reply Brief (filed Jan. 19, 2007) for the arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to Appellants’ Specification and claims, to the applied prior art
1 We note that dependent claim 17 indicated “the subset of channels,” but
independent claim 10, from which 17 depends, recites “a subset of channel
indicators.” We leave it to the Examiner to determine if there is a problem
with antecedent basis or claim dependency where dependent claim 17 should
depend from independent claim 16 which recites a subset of channels.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013