Appeal No. 1998-2708
Application No. 08/459,361
In a system such as this, one would be motivated to
include a control means for enabling/inhibiting the
wireless terminal station, as taught by Gillig, in
order to minimize communications costs. Therefore,
in order to minimize communications costs, it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of applicant’s invention to use an
apparatus with an alternate communications means and
a control means for enabling/inhibiting the wireless
terminal station as taught by Gillig, in the typical
radio communications system of Morais. [Final
rejection-page 3.]
Appellants argue that neither Gillig nor Morais teaches
or suggests the claimed wireless terminal station (WTS)
(brief-page 12). The Examiner responds that the wireless
terminal station (WTS) is taught at 10 in Figure 1 of Gillig,
and the first sentence of the abstract and Figure 1 in Morais
(answer-page 4).
We agree with Appellants as to Gillig. Element 10 in
Figure 1 of Gillig clearly does not have “telephone sets (T)
connected by subscriber lines (LS) to the wireless terminal2
stations (WTS)” as recited is independent claims 1 and 3. On
the other hand, Morais clearly discloses such wireless
terminal stations (WTS) in Figure 1 as 14, 16 and 18.
2“[T]erminals” here in claim 1 should be “terminal”.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007