Appeal No. 1998-2608
Application 08/570,439
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon Hamabe in
view of Wang, further in view of Åkerberg as to claim 1. As
to claims 3 through 5, the examiner relies upon Hamabe,
Åkerberg and Duque-Anton. As evidence of obviousness for
claims 2 and 6, the examiner relies upon Hamabe in view of
Åkerberg and Ohteru, with the addition of Wang as to claims 7
through 10.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
For the reasons generally set forth by the examiner in
the answer, with the following embellishments, we sustain the
rejection of claims 1 through 8 and 10, and reverse the
rejection of claim 9.
Turning first to the rejection of claim 1, the discussion
at column 1, lines 19 through 26 of Hamabe indicates that co-
channel interference may be decreased by the use of
directional antennas at base stations, with each antenna
illuminating or covering a sector of the cell, whereas
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007