Appeal No. 1997-0899
Application No. 08/127,268
has been
received or after a timeout period whereas claim 4 requires
that power be maintained until the next synchronizing message
is received [pages 9-10].
Although Mabey does teach additional power consumption
approaches such as powering down the receiver at the end of
its reception or by powering down the receiver after a
predetermined time period, these are not the only approaches
suggested by Mabey. Mabey also suggests that a given receiver
may be maintained in its active state until the next control
period [column 8, lines 2-7]. Since the control periods in
Mabey are the synchronizing messages of the Mabey-Fujiwara
combination, we do not agree with appellants that the
collective teachings of the prior art do not suggest the
maintaining step of claim 4. Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of claims 4 and 11.
With respect to the claims of Group V as represented
by claim 6, appellants argue that the prior art does not teach
or suggest the transmitting step of claim 6 [reply brief, page
10]. Claim 6 recites that source and destination addresses
are included in the traffic indicator messages. Mabey’s
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007