Appeal No. 1997-1378
Application No. 08/065,328
We further find Appellants arguments to be convincing
with respect to dependent claims 8 and 18. These claims
provide a more detailed recitation of the background noise
factor in determining signal quality discussed supra with
respect to the Examiner’s addition of Stengel to address the
features of claims 6, 7, 16, and 17. In particular, claims 8
and 18 include a specific recitation of the determination of
the maximum value of the background noise level of the mobile
station and the base station in the received beacon message.
We agree with Appellants that, contrary to the Examiner’s
assertion, the total noise power determined by Stengel does
not meet the specific requirements of the claimed maximum
value determination.
Since, for all of the reasons discussed above, we are of
the opinion that the prior art applied by the Examiner does
not support the obviousness rejection, we do not sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103 of dependent claims 4, 5, 8, 14, 15, and 18.
In conclusion, we have sustained the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-13, 16, 17, and 19, but
have not sustained the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 4,
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007