Appeal No. 2002-2000
Application No. 08/933,911
Station (MS) moving from an area of Cell C1 of the local region MA1
into the Cell C2 of the local region MA2 as shown in the left
portion of the Figure 1 showing in Reininghaus. We agree with the
appellant’s basic urging in the brief that this interpretation of
the reference in this manner relates to a transition of a call
between cells of local regions within the HLR or home register
region. Thus, even if Lee and Reininghaus were properly
combineable within 35 U.S.C. § 103 according to the examiner’s
reasoning, the result would essentially read on the prior art and
the same “serving system” to the extent recited on the claims on
appeal. Since the claims require a caller to be considered to be
roaming in a particular serving system, the caller must be served
by a different serving system and have a different home register
HLR. Since, according to the examiner’s reasoning in the final
rejection, a common home register HLRA serves both cells C1 and C2,
the overall requirements of the claims on appeal cannot be met.
On the other hand, it appears to us that both the appellant
and the examiner do not considered the full teaching value of
Reininghaus as to the claims on appeal and its combinability with
Lee within 35 U.S.C. § 103. Therefore, we institute a new ground
of rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over Reininghaus in view of Lee. It may be
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007