Appeal No. 1999-1109
Application No. 08/359,904
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The Examiner rejects claims 2-10 and 17-20 under this
ground of rejection on page 5 of the Examiner’s answer. With
respect to claim 17, the Examiner contends, id., that “Claim 17
is confusing since terms ‘absolute velocity’ and ‘relative
velocity’ are undefined in the specification.” Appellant at
page 6 of the principal brief argues that “[t]he specification
describes various ways to sense velocity of the telephone
including use of a car speedometer, inertial navigation unit,
GPS satellite navigation system, etc. Clearly, these do not
measure or sense relative velocity of the telephone relative to
the base station. They are used to sense non-relative or
absolute velocity.”
Regarding claim 2, the Examiner asserts, answer at page 5,
that “[c]laim 2 is confusing since both of the telephone systems
are cellular, while the parent claim state (sic) one must be a
non-cellular.” Appellant argues, principal brief at page 6,
that “claim 2 includes three telephone systems; one non-cellular
and
two cellular.”
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007