Appeal No. 1997-0622
Application No. 08/414,051
invention.”
In the rejection of claim 29, the examiner contends
(answer, page 10) that D’Amico discloses a “step of receiving
an indication of the relative size of a cell (column 2,
line[s] 39-54).” Although D’Amico discloses that cells of
various sizes are provided (column 2, lines 30 and 31), and
that smaller cells should be used for high density
communications traffic areas and larger cells should be used
for low density communications traffic areas (column 2, lines
39 through 54), D’Amico, Riordan and Grauel do not disclose a
mobile station that receives an indication of the relative
size of a cell wherein the mobile station is located, and
based on this received signal transmits “an initial access
burst of a duration calculated, based on said indication of
cell size, to avoid burst collisions with transmissions of
other mobile stations at a base station of said cell” (brief,
page 18). Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim
29 is reversed.
Turning lastly to the obviousness rejection of claims 32
through 34, we noted supra that each of these claims requires
the base station to initiate information exchange, and that
15
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007