Appeal No. 1999-0876
Application No. 08/693,494
a handset by way of a base station, not 'a second random
number generated at said cordless base station' as claimed" in
independent claims 11 and 17. The examiner admits (Answer,
page 6) that Connolly fails to disclose a random number
generated at the cordless base station, as this is the
examiner's basis for rejecting other claims under 35 U.S.C. §
103 instead of under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Thus, we are a bit
confused as to why claims 11 and 17 were not included with the
claims rejected for obviousness over Connolly. Nonetheless,
as the rejection before us is under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and
Connolly fails to disclose each and every element of claims 11
and 17, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 17
over Connolly.
Regarding the obviousness rejection of claims 3 through
9, 13 through 16, and 18 through 20 over Connolly, the
examiner asserts (Answer, page 6) that Connolly discloses all
of the claimed subject matter except for a random number
generated at the cordless base station. We first note that
claims 4, 6, 7, 13, 15, and 16 do not include the limitation
of a random number generated at the cordless base station.
Instead, as asserted by appellants (Brief, pages 6-7), claims
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007