Appeal No. 97-2758 Page 3
Application No. 07/859,962
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first
paragraph, as relying on a nonenabling disclosure.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
The examiner contends that the specification does not
teach how to implement the step of determining whether a call
should be set up in accordance with the conventional normal
transmission mode, the conventional extended transmission mode
or an extended transmission mode. The examiner further
contends that there is a lack of disclosure of any particular
device for adding the second time offset to the first standard
time offset without losing synchronization. The examiner also
notes that since there is no additional time offset in a
conventional GSM system, there must be some modification of
such a conventional system in order to provide for the
additional time offset as claimed. Yet, the instant
disclosure suggests no circuit diagram or other apparatus for
so modifying a conventional system in order to provide for the
additional time offset. Therefore, the examiner concludes,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007