Appeal No. 1999-0085
Application No. 08/427,514
above, appellants argue that this feature of claims 4 and 9 is
not taught by Connor. We cannot find anything in the
examiner’s rejection or response which specifically responds
to this argument. The local (second) database of Connor is
updated in response to intervention by service personnel. We
agree with appellants that this does not constitute a validate
configuration request message.
Claims 4 and 9 also recite that the local database is
updated with an updated view of the radio communication
database. Even if the adjustment to the first database in
Connor was considered to be a validate configuration request
message, Connor
would update the local database with the information from the
first database and not the information from the radio
communication database.
For the reasons discussed above, we find that Connor
does not disclose every feature of independent claims 1, 4, 7
and 9. Therefore, the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 5,
7, 9-11, 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is not sustained.
We now consider the rejection of claims 6 and 12 under
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007