Appeal No. 1997-0899
Application No. 08/127,268
of stations to receive messages in this portion of Mabey. We
disagree with appellants’ characterization of this portion of
the Mabey disclosure, and we also find that the recitations of
claim
1 are clearly supported by other portions of the Mabey
disclosure.
The portion of Mabey pointed to by the examiner and
argued by appellants does not relate to station identification
information, but rather, relates to an indication of where
within a data frame a given identified station will receive
its data. Note that the portion of Mabey right before the
indicated portion describes alternative ways in which an
identified secondary station can be informed of when it will
receive its data within the data frame. This permits even
more power conservation to take place because an identified
secondary station does not have to be placed in an awake state
until it knows that it is time for its data within the data
frame. The indicated portion of Mabey simply indicates that,
in order to simplify matters, the identified secondary
stations could all be energized without regard to the position
within the data frame that a given identified secondary
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007