Appeal No. 2000-1557
Application 08/384,456
52, appellants make the same arguments we considered above with
respect to claim 52. Therefore, we also sustain this rejection
of claim 50.
We now consider the rejection of claims 18-22 based on
Blakeney and Gudmundson. The examiner indicates how he finds
obviousness on pages 8-10 of the answer. With respect to claims
18 and 19, appellants argue that the soft handoff techniques of
Blakeney are different from those claimed for reasons discussed
above with respect to claim 1. Appellants also argue that only
their own disclosure teaches using subtractive demodulation
during soft handoff. The examiner notes the arguments discussed
above with respect to claim 1 and responds that Gudmundson
teaches the use of subtractive demodulation during handoff
[answer, pages 21-22]. We agree with the examiner for reasons
discussed above and for the reasons given by the examiner in the
answer. Therefore, we sustain this rejection of claims 18 and
19.
With respect to claims 20-22, appellants argue that the
examiner has improperly relied on appellants’ own disclosure to
support the rejection [brief, page 17]. The examiner responds
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007