Appeal No. 1997-0622
Application No. 08/414,051
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse all of the rejections with the exception
of the indefiniteness rejection of claims 2 through 10, 14
through 18 and 21 through 26, and the anticipation rejection
of claims 32 and 34.
Turning first as we must to the indefiniteness rejection,
the examiner contends (answer, page 5) that the phrase “TIA
digital cellular standard” is indefinite because “standards
change over time and there are more than one version of the
TIA digital cellular standard.” In response, appellants argue
(brief, page 5) that:
The fact that the standard may change has no bearing
on the clarity of the claim insofar as one is
reasonably apprised that this access burst has the
same duration and bit rate as a shortened burst
transmitted on an uplink channel according to a
given standard, whatever the standard might be at
the time.
Although a specific EIA/TIA-54 standard is disclosed
(specification, pages 4, 5, 11, 25, 26 and 32), appellants
have not chosen to limit the claimed invention to that
particular standard. Instead they have chosen to broadly
claim a TIA standard to leave open the possibility that the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007