Appeal No. 1998-1181
Application No. 08/442,883
Finally, Appellants assert that by virtue of the
statutory limitations of 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, the
specific means and steps are not taught by the prior art.
In reply to Appellants' assertion that there is no reason
to combine Blair and Krolopp, the Examiner provides that both 27
systems teach cellular phones with frequency scanning and
frequency selection, registration to the roam system in the
event the primary system is temporarily unavailable, and a
comparison process to see if the received SID belongs to the
primary SID. In addition, Blair teaches automatically
selecting a frequency corresponding to a home SID and Krolopp
teaches a cellular system having more than one home SID. The
Examiner then find that “the Blair system as modified by
Krollop clearly read[s] on the claimed subject matter given
the interpretation of means-plus-function in accordance with
35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.”
In the rejection the Examiner states that Blair fails to28
show the cellular system storing a plurality of home SIDs, and
notes that Krollop teaches the cellular telephone system
27 Response To Reply Brief, page 2.
28 Answer, pages 7-8.
18
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007