Appeal No. 96-0309
Application 08/135,370
("This argument [by the appellant that the reference was not
enabling] . . . fails to recognize that a prior art reference
must be 'considered together with the knowledge of one of
ordinary skill in the pertinent art.'").
For the reasons stated above, we reverse the rejection of
claims 26-41.
Questions
We have some questions about the disclosure, claims, and
appellants' arguments which should be answered to the examiner
before this case is allowed.
First, figures 2a, 2b, and 2c show the information time
slots in each channel contiguous to one another and
simultaneous with time slots in the other channel. This
appears to be misdescriptive since, in our understanding, the
channels are used in an alternating manner (specification,
page 4, lines 15-17). The described structure seems to
operate like Kamio, figure 1, which uses a switch to
consecutively switch between different frequency channels; if
this is not the case, appellants should explain how their
system operates differently. Thus, it would seem like figure
- 11 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007