Appeal No. 95-4897
Application 08/242,806
recited in paragraph D of claim 6. Similar
recitations are contained in paragraph H of claim 8
and paragraph D(iii) of claim 10.
Appellants argue that Murata teaches to those skilled in the
art that at all times the control channel is monitored by a
transceiver. Appellants further argue Murata fails to suggest
to those skilled in the art to modify this requirement of
always monitoring the control channel by a transceiver.
Upon our review of Murata, we fail to find that Murata
teaches allowing the control channel to not be monitored as
recited in Appellants' claims. In the abstract, Murata makes
it clear that at least one of the connecting equipment units
is kept in the first control mode, a mode where the control is
monitored by the connecting equipment. In column 1, lines 45-
68, Murata points out that it is not desirable for the
connecting equipment
units to not always monitor the control channel because this
would result in prolongation of a response to the a call in
the control station. Murata states that this prolongation is
because the connecting equipment cannot respond to the call.
In column 2, lines 12-15, Murata states that it is the object
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007