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 14Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007