Appeal No. 95-3346
Application 07/953,320
brief, appellant discusses Nazarenko’s disclosure at columns 10 and 16 to show that this is the case
because the “control channel messages” of Nazarenko do not control the transmission of “working
channel messages” between stations. In the answer to the reply brief, the above position of appellant is
not addressed by the examiner.
At column 26, lines 10-45, the reference discloses that “control channel messages” and
“working channel messages” are transmitted independently. However, there is no teaching in the above
disclosure that the “control channel messages” control the transmission of “working channel messages”.
Furthermore, we agree with appellant’s unrebutted analysis of Nazarenko concerning columns 10 and
16 and, accordingly, will not sustain the rejection of claims 11-27. The examiner has not established
where in Nazarenko it is taught that (1) slots carry control messages independently of information
packets for controlling the transmission of information packets between stations, as in independent
claim 12, or (2) a radio channel assignment (control message) is transmitted to a controlled station for
indicating to the controlled station the channel (slot) upon which the burst (information packet) will be
transmitted, and the burst is transmitted on the indicated channel between stations, as in independent
claims 18 and 24, and dependent
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007