Appeal No. 1998-2608
Application 08/570,439
We do, however, agree with appellant's view expressed at
page 13 of the brief that the combination of the references
does not teach the details of the channel assignment regime
set forth in detail in claim 9 on appeal, which is a mirror of
the logic presented in the flow chart of Figure 8 of the
disclosed invention. The detail of the subject matter of this
claim goes well beyond the examiner's assertions of
unpatentability of it in light of the references relied upon
either in the statement of the rejection portion in the answer
or the responsive arguments portion of the answer. Therefore,
we reverse the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In view of the foregoing, we affirm the decision of the
examiner rejecting claims 1 through 8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, but reverse the rejection of claim 9. As such, the
decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007