Appeal No. 1997-2246
Application 08/353,572
predetermined coded transmission slot on each of the plurality
of channels, when the channel identification information
received (claim 1) or detected (claim 9) on each of the
plurality of channels does not match predetermined channel
identification information. With respect to Schwendeman’s
claim 18, the appellants note that it specifies that each
coded transmission slot of the predetermined sequence is
transmitted sequentially on each of the plurality of channels
so as to preclude the simultaneous transmission of a
correspondingly coded transmission slot on any two channels in
each geographical area. The examiner has not shown that any
of these features are included in any one of appellants’
rejected claims. As for obviousness, the examiner has not
presented any analysis as to why it would have been obvious to
arrive at Schwendeman’s claims 1, 9 and/or 18 in light of any
one of the appellants’ claims. The examiner recognized
(answer on page 6) that the appellants’ claims only require
that the receiver switch to a second frequency when it does
not receive a message on the first frequency, and does not
require the receipt of a list of station frequencies in a
control packet. However, that does not demonstrate
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007