Appeal No. 2002-2292
Application No. 09/139,749
controller 12 sends handoff request (which includes address and
binding information to the each of the new destination nodes 22);
and column 10, lines 5-30, discusses how the destination nodes
use the address and binding information to support a new
diversity leg of communication.
Appellants’ first argument is that claims 1-4 are not
properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) because Muszynski did
not issue more than one year prior to the date of application for
patent in the United States. The argument is not persuasive
because the rejection is under 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
Appellants also argue, at page 8 of the principal brief,
that Muszynski fails to disclose certain steps of claim 1, and
then proceeds to list every step in the claim. Such a recitation
is not helpful since it does not specify the specific step or
steps on which appellants are focusing.
At page 9 of the principal brief, appellants are more
specific, stating that “nowhere in Muszynski...is there any
disclosure of CN-RNC interface streamlining, nevertheless a
method for reconfiguring diversity legs during CN-RNC interface
streamlining as recited in independent claim 1.” The examiner
points to column 5, lines 10-15, for a discussion of diversity
legs in a radio network, but we agree with appellants that
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007