Appeal No. 1997-0622
Application No. 08/414,051
Turning to claims 32 and 34, if the base station in
Barnes communicates with the mobile station with one of the
two above-noted transmission formats, then the mobile station
responds with the same transmission format (column 20, line 47
through column 22, line 6). Appellants’ arguments (brief,
page 12) to the contrary notwithstanding, Barnes discloses a
“plurality of communication formats involving different
lengths of bursts” because the bit length of multiplex 1.2
differs from the bit length of multiplex 1.4. For these
reasons, the 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) rejection of claims 32 and 34 is sustained.
Although the two above-noted transmission formats may be
considered a format of short bursts and a format of long
bursts, Barnes is completely silent concerning “a format of a
combination of a short burst followed by one or more long
bursts” as set forth in claims 33 and 35. Accordingly, the 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 33 and 35 is reversed.
For all of the reasons expressed supra in connection with
the reversal of the anticipation rejection of independent
claims 1 and 11, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 2, 4
through 10, 14 through 18 and 21 is reversed.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007