Appeal No. 1998-0666
Application 08/467,876
1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469
U.S. 851 (1984).
The examiner indicates how he reads each of
independent claims 13, 54 and 59 on the disclosure of Tayloe
[answer, pages 4-5]. With respect to these independent
claims, appellant argues that Tayloe only sets paging frame
classes at registration. According to appellant, Tayloe does
not teach or suggest modifying the paging frame class once it
has been assigned by way of a message which is transmitted
from the radiocommunication system [brief, pages 5-6].
Because of this distinction, appellant argues that Tayloe
fails to disclose the final limitation in each of claims 13,
54 and 59. The examiner responds that the “DRX factor” in
Tayloe is a paging repeat factor which meets the recitations
of the claims [answer, pages 5-7].
After a careful consideration of the record in this
case and in view of the scope of the independent claims, we
agree with the conclusion reached by the examiner. Although
Tayloe only specifically discloses providing wake-up interval
information to a mobile unit as part of the registration
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007