Appeal 2007-1094
Application 09/844,976
Regarding claim 3, Appellant admits that Hendricks teaches a cellular
network, but nevertheless argues that there is no teaching or suggestion of a
cell tower. (Reply Br. 3). Appellant does not respond to the Examiner's
argument that a cell tower is inherent in a cellular network. We agree with
the Examiner that a cell tower is inherent in a cellular network.
With respect to claim 4, Appellant argues that a TV broadcast tower is
not shown in Hendricks (Br. 6). The Examiner took Official Notice that TV
broadcast towers are well known as a transmission scheme, as evidenced by
Kostreski. (Answer 4-5). We agree with the Examiner.
Claims 5 and 6 were not argued separately, and stand or fall together
with claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Appellant argues that a fixed user appliance is not
taught or suggested by Hendricks. (Br. 7). The Examiner replies that the set
top terminals of Hendricks are fixed. (Reply Br. 5). We agree with the
Examiner.
With respect to claim 8, we find that a skilled artisan would have used
the mobile device teachings of Owa to make the system as taught by
Hendricks in view of Kim more convenient to the user by enabling the user
to roam freely with the mobile terminal.
Claims 9-12 were argued on the same grounds as claims 1-4, and we
affirm the rejection of claims 9-12 for the same reasons as discussed above
with respect to claims 1-4.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013