Appeal No. 2001-2017
Application No. 09/098,049
a broadcast “control” channel, as recognized by the examiner in
applying Wortham. If Schuchman does not disclose or suggest the
use of a broadcast “control” channel, what would have led the
artisan to provide for one? Merely because such “control”
channels were known and that it was known to provide data on a
control channel does not, per se, make it obvious, within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103, to provide for a broadcast control
channel in the system of Schuchman. The examiner indicates that
this would have been done “in order to reserve traffic channels
for other mobile stations” but there is no indication, within the
applied references, that there would have been any need for, or
advantage in, reserving traffic channels for other mobile
stations. Accordingly, the examiner has provided insufficient
motivation for modifying Schuchman in order to provide for the
deficiency admitted by the examiner.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of
independent claims 1 and 11, and the claims dependent thereon,
under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Since independent claims 23, 25 and 27 also contain the
limitation of a “broadcast control channel,” we will not sustain
the rejection of these claims, or of the claims dependent
thereon, under 35 U.S.C. 103, for the reasons supra.
-7–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007