Appeal No. 1997-0622
Application No. 08/414,051
teachings of Barnes. Although the mobile station 3 adjusts
its timing based upon the transmission timing of the base
station 3, the timing adjustment is not based upon a
“propagation delay” as set forth in claims 1 and 27. More
importantly, the subsequent transmission by the mobile station
11 in the next 2 millisecond burst period does not have to be
longer than the first transmission by the mobile station
(brief, page 8). Thus, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of
claims 1 and 27 is reversed because all of the limitations of
these claims are not found in the teachings of Barnes.
Although Barnes uses two different transmission formats,
namely multiplex 1.2 and multiplex 1.4 (column 20, line 60
through column 22, line 6), appellants argue (brief, pages 9
through 12) that Barnes’ transmission technique during the
above-noted 2 millisecond burst transmission period (Figure 2)
does not involve “sending information from said base station
to said mobile station indicating whether or not a subsequent
access burst is expected” as required by claims 11 through 13,
19, 20 and 28. We agree. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of
claims
11 through 13, 19, 20 and 28 is reversed.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007