Appeal No. 1997-1378
Application No. 08/065,328
We next consider dependent claims 4, 5, 14, and 15 and
note that, while we found Appellants’ arguments to be
unpersuasive with respect to claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-13, 16, 17,
and 19 discussed supra, we reach the opposite conclusion with
respect to claims 4, 5, 14, and 15. These claims are directed
to the provision of a second threshold value comparison during
the search mode following the first threshold value comparison
which initiates the search mode feature. To address this
feature, the Examiner relies on Furuya which discloses a
cordless telephone system in which different carrier sensing
threshold values are utilized to prevent interference between
stations. As disclosed, for example, at column 1, lines 23-35
of Furuya, a lower threshold value is utilized during system
startup with the threshold values being increased during
widespread use of the system when the number of stations and
communication traffic has increased.
In response, Appellants assert (Brief, page 15) that the
Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness since proper motivation for one of ordinary skill
to make the Examiner’s proposed combination has not been
established. Upon careful review of the applied prior art, we
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007