Appeal No. 1997-0624
Application No. 08/303,556
any evidence to satisfy that burden. Compare In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195
USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664, 169 USPQ 563,
566-67 (CCPA 1971).
Appellants argue that Eizenhöfer has not recognized the problem that differentiation
between adjacent voice channels within a cluster or reuse pattern is required. (See Brief
at pages 7-8.) The examiner argues that the independent claims do not recite adjacent
channel interference. We agree with the examiner.
Appellants further argue that the invention solves the problem of differentiating an
undesired adjacent voice channel from a desired voice channel and that this problem is
overcome by including within each voice channel, signaling interference protection
information that differentiates desired voice channels from undesired or interfering voice
channels. (See Brief at pages 7-8.) The examiner argues that the independent claims do
not recite this distinction. We agree with the examiner. We do not find an express basis in
claim 5 for requiring that each channel include signaling interference protection information
that differentiates the channel. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
The examiner maintains that
As applied, the Eizenhofer reference anticipates claims 1-2 and 4-8 since
Eizenhofer discloses the use of the mobile's ID to "differentiate" between
users. The IDs are transmitted in all channels (desired, interfering, adjacent
etc.) in order that the mobiles can be distinguished from each other. The
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007