Appeal No. 1998-0101
Application No. 08/253,996
Therefore it would have been obvious for one with
ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention
to utilize [the] site preference technique of Hurst
et al. in view of Kinoshita et al. because it saves
one traffic channel along with a[n] overhead of
signaling between base stations as described in col
3, lines 55-60. [Final rejection, pages 1 and 2.]
Appellants argue that the combined references do not
teach, “a site preference indicator for each of a plurality of
communication sites” (Brief-page 3).
As the Examiner has indicated, Hurst clearly discloses
site preference indicators. At column 7, line 66 to column 8,
line 4, we find first, second and third preferences. These
preferences are selected in their respective order so long as
the signal quality is adequate. According to column 6, lines
36-48, the preference list has the first preference (home base
station) permanently programmed into the mobile unit. The
remainder of the preferences in the list are dynamically
acquired and stored in the mobile unit. We find that these
teachings meet the language of the claims with respect to
preference indicators, and further, Appellants’ disclosure.
Note page 3, lines 27-29, of Appellants’ specification wherein
it states “The received signal strength is measured on the
-5-5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007