Appeal No. 1999-0470
Application 08/639,136
Only those arguments actually made by appellants have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
considered [see 37 CFR
§ 1.192(a)].
The examiner indicates how he perceives the claimed
invention to be taught by the disclosure of Markus [answer,
pages 3-4]. With respect to independent claims 1 and 20,
appellants argue that Markus does not teach the simulation of
one type of system to determine how it will affect another
type of system. Specifically, claims 1 and 20 recite that a
code-division multiple access (CDMA) system is controlled
based on potential interference from an analog wireless
system. The examiner responds that Markus can simulate any
type of communication system [answer, pages 4-7].
We agree with appellants. Markus teaches that a
communication system can be simulated to determine how to
achieve optimum performance of that communication system. As
argued by appellants, however, Markus does not relate to
modifying one communication system based on potential
interference from a second communication system. Claims 1 and
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007