Appeal No. 1997-0899
Application No. 08/127,268
arguments actually made by appellants have been considered in
this decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but
chose not to make in the briefs have not been considered [see
37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
With respect to the claims of Group I as represented
by independent claim 1, the examiner asserts that Mabey
teaches the claimed invention except for the explicit
disclosure of broadcasting synchronizing messages. The
examiner does note, however, that Mabey teaches that
synchronization between the transmitter and the receivers must
be maintained. The examiner cites Fujiwara as teaching the
broadcasting of synchronizing messages for the explicit
purpose of saving power consumption at the receivers. The
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to the
artisan to broadcast synchronizing messages in the Mabey
system as taught by Fujiwara [answer, pages 3-4].
Appellants argue that the portion of Mabey relied on
by the examiner to support the teaching of the maintaining
step [column 1, line 67 to column 2, line 2] does not in fact
suggest the operation recited in claim 1 [brief, pages 10-12].
Specifically, appellants argue that there is no identification
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007