Appeal No. 1997-0622
Application No. 08/414,051
[T]he mobile identification number in claim 18 is
somewhat akin to the last name of a person. While
the last name of a person identifies that person, it
does not uniquely identify that person within the
person’s family where [there] are other people with
the same last name.
When the claimed invention is considered in light of
appellants’ disclosed invention, and the above-quoted
explanation of the disclosed invention, we find that the noted
phrase does not render claim 18 indefinite.
Based upon the foregoing, the rejection of claims 2
through 10, 14 through 18 and 21 through 26 under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is sustained.
Turning next to the anticipation rejection of claims 1,
11 through 13, 19, 20, 27, 28 and 32 through 35, a review of
Barnes (Figure 2) reveals that the base station 3 and the
mobile handset 11 must both complete their transmissions to
each other within a 2 millisecond burst period. Although “the
timing of the handset 11 must be slaved to the timing of the
base station 3,” the base station always initiates the burst
period at each 2 millisecond interval (column 23, lines 6
though 24). If the base station sends the first data burst,
then the first step of claims 1 and 27 can not be met by the
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007