Appeal No. 2007-0329
Application No. 08/498,749
6 of the Answer. In view of our analysis in our foregoing paragraph, we do
not agree with the Examiner’s statement at page 8 of the Answer that the
Admitted Prior Art does not show locating at least one control field
substantially at the start of the information area. When taken in proper
context, the discussion at the middle of page 3 of the Specification as filed is
consistent with prior art ETSI Recommendation GSM-08.60 relating to
European Digital Cellular Telecommunications standard information in
1993.
Moreover, the discussion at the bottom of page 4 of the Specification
as filed relating to the operation of prior art Figure 1 indicates that the time
of a change of a cell or internal handover in response to a mobile station
crossing imaginary boundary lines B in this figure between two cells may
generate a bad frame indication bit C12, the location of which was said to be
less than optimal and leads to the risk of incorrect interpretation of the data
bits by the TRAU 1 of Figure 1. This analysis is further expanded at the
middle of page 5 of the Specification as filed continuing its discussion
relative to the Admitted Prior Art for situations if a handover between cells
occurs after the synchronization pattern MST and before bit C12, it was
known that there was a high probability that a bit of the second frame
transmitted by the target BTS would have incorrectly indicated that the
frame is good whereas in fact it was a bad frame. Therefore, it appears from
the prior art alone that it would have been obvious to have located the
claimed at least one control field much earlier in the frame than bit position
C12 was indicated in the prior art approach in order to minimize the risk of
incorrect interpretation of data bits by the TRAU and to therefore decrease
the probability that a frame is in fact bad when it is received as good.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013