Appeal No. 1997-0622
Application No. 08/414,051
The Grauel et al. patent does not supply the
teachings missing from the Riordan patent, even if
one were to assume some logical combination of the
teachings of these two patents. The Grauel et al.
patent discloses a method of accessing transmission
channels in a communication system which includes
the use of short access bursts. The Grauel et al.
patent discloses the purpose of the shortened access
bursts is to avoid blockage of a service channel.
As mentioned at column 4, lines 16-35, in the Grauel
et al. system, access attempts are made by mobile
systems in order to enable initiation of subscriber
information transfer. An access attempt starts with
an access request formed by a short access signal.
It continues with a response from the central base
station and is completed with a regular access
signal sent by the mobile station.
The base station in the Grauel et al. system
does not send timing adjustment information
according to which a subsequent second access signal
is to be
sent . . . .
Based upon the teachings of the applied references, it is
clear that the mobile stations in each of the references
initiates the transmission sequence whereas in each of claims
28, 30 and 31 the base station initiates the transmission
sequence by sending information to the mobile stations. Thus,
the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 28, 30 and 31 is
reversed because we agree with appellants’ argument (brief,
page 17) that “no matter how one attempts to combine or
construe these patents, they would not result in the claimed
14
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007