Appeal No. 1997-0624
Application No. 08/303,556
mobiles only respond to channels that carry their particular unique ID and
remain unresponsive to the other channels whether these channels are
adjacent or otherwise situated. This is all that is required by claims 1-2 and
4-8.
Moreover, claims 1-2 and 4-5 as presently recited even read on
appellants [sic, appellants’] discussion of the use of SAT to guard against
cochannel interference as discussed at page 7 of the Brief. As is well known
and conceded by appellants, SAT is transmitted in the voice channels
(differentiating signalling) and used by the mobile and base station to assure
that a mobile is communicating with the correct base station. The correct
receipt and retransmission of SAT assures the mobile and base that
co-channel interference has been prevented. Therefore, SAT is "signalling
information" which is transmitted in all the voice channels (desired and
"interfering") where the mobile responds only to the correct anticipated
version of SAT. This is all that is required by claims 1-2 and 4-5 as presently
recited.
Eizenhofer and appellants [sic, appellants’] invention [sic, inventions]
differ in the inclusion of signalling identifying (through the use of an odd/even
bit or one of 2 states of 2 channel partitions) adjacent channels in order to
prevent adjacent channel interference as specifically shown in appellants
[sic, appellants’] figure 3 and, where the claims have recited such features
(namely claims 9-10, 12-13, and 18-21), these claims have been indicated
allowable. The broad recitations of claims 1-2 and 4-8 which do not recite
such features are anticipated by Eizenhofer through the use of the mobiles
[sic, mobile’s] ID as the "information" which differentiates between users.
(See Answer at pages 7-8.)
The examiner has interpreted the language of the claims to be limited to a single user per
channel thereby having the IDs distinguish the channels. Appellants have not submitted a
Reply Brief to address the examiner’s clear statement of how the claims have been
interpreted and how the prior art has been interpreted and applied. Therefore, we accept
the examiner’s reasonable interpretation of the prior art as applied to the language of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007