Appeal No. 1997-1378
Application No. 08/065,328
claimed signal quality determination feature. After careful
review of the Stengel reference, however, we are in agreement
with the Examiner’s position as stated in the Answer. In our
view, the passages cited by the Examiner from page 5 of
Stengel related to the noise/RSSI analysis system disclose
Appellants’ background noise factor as claimed.
Appellants’ further argument that Stengel is deficient
since there is no disclosure of representation of background
noise as a portion of a base station transmitted beacon
message is equally unpersuasive. Stengel has been cited by
the Examiner for the limited purpose of providing a teaching
of utilizing background noise factors in determination of
signal quality. This reference is used in combination with
Natarajan which clearly describes analysis of beacon messages
transmitted from base stations. One cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. In re
Keller, 642 F. 2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck &
Co., Inc., 800 F. 2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Therefore, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
dependent claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 is sustained.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007