Appeal No. 95-3346
Application 07/953,320
time. Figure 6 illustrates a reverse allocation request, that is, a request from a mobile station to allocate
a channel to the mobile station. The reverse allocation request is transmitted in the third subslot of slot
2, the fourth subslot of slot 4 and the second subslot of slot 5. In Figure 6 the request is transmitted at
three different times, in three different slots, and on three different frequencies.
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103
Claims 5-10
After consideration of the positions and arguments presented by both the examiner and the
appellant, we will sustain the rejection of claims 5, 6 and 10 but will not sustain the rejection of claims
7-9. With respect to the rejection of claims 5, 6 and 10, we agree in general with the comments made
by the examiner; we add the following discussion for emphasis.
At page 5 of the reply brief, appellant contends that there is no suggestion in the references,
Lee and French, that they are combinable and urges that “…the environments in which they operate
and the solutions that they teach are very different.” Appellant urges that “…the Examiner has made no
showing that it would be obvious to combine them.”
Contrary to appellant’s position, the examiner has stated to the effect that the suggestion to
combine the teachings of Lee and French, each of which relates to radio transmission in mobile phone
environments, stems from the fact that the teachings of the references are to protect and preserve radio
telephone messages. We agree with the examiner’s position. Protection and preservation of the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007