Appeal No. 1997-0622
Application No. 08/414,051
In the obviousness rejection of claims 28, 30 and 31, the
examiner contends (answer, page 7) that Riordan discloses all
of the claimed subject matter “except for the mobile station
is to send a subsequent second burst to the base station.”
For such a teaching, the examiner turns to Grauel which
teaches that “the second access burst (signal) being longer
than the first access burst (column 4, lines 5-15, column 6,
lines 29-35, and column 11, lines 37-55) in mobile radio
telephone system (column 3, lines 53-61) for the purpose of
avoiding collisions of access burst (signals) from mobile
stations” (answer, page 7). For such an advantage, the
examiner contends (answer, page 8) that “it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to incorporate the use of mobile station is
to send a subsequent second burst to the base station, the
second access burst being longer than the first access burst,
as taught by Grauel et al, in the cellular mobile radio
telephone system of Riordan.” In Riordan, a radio channel
unit 140 in the base station 115 performs automatic gain
control (AGC) of a received random access burst 200 (Abstract;
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007