Appeal No. 1999-0470
Application 08/639,136
speculation. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 14 and 15.
With respect to independent claim 17, appellants argue
that there is no suggestion in Markus of placing a new base
station based on interference of other base stations with
respect to first and second radii [brief, page 10]. The
examiner does not respond to this argument, but the initial
rejection indicated that the recited radius measuring was
analogous to the distance data disclosed by Markus.
Although we agree with the examiner that Markus does
take into account the distance between a mobile station and
the base stations, there is no suggestion in Markus that first
and second radii as claimed should be used for the placement
of a new base station. Therefore, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 17-19.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007