Appeal No. 97-2762
Application No. 08/309,845
2) that it cannot also correspond to a "cellular-transceiver
interface maeans" (claim 46). Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of claim 46 is reversed.
Turning to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 29
through 34, 37 and 47 through 57, appellants’ argument (Brief,
page 7) that "the definition set forth in the specification
for the terms 'land-line link' and 'radio link' clearly mean
an entire system, such as the switched land-line system or the
switched cellular system" is not commensurate in scope with
the apparatus and method set forth in these claims. Other
than claim 12, and the claims that depend therefrom, none of
the claims on appeal recites a radio link from the land-line,
telephonic communication device to a base station. For
example, claim 29 and the claims that depend therefrom broadly
recite a "second means for coupling a land-line, telephonic
communication device to a radio link," claim 47 and the claims
that depend therefrom broadly recite a "means for coupling
said plurality of land-line, telephonic communication devices
to said at least one radio transceiver," and claim 52 and the
claims that depend therefrom broadly recite "coupling said at
least a portion of the land-line, interior-premises, telephone
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007