Appeal No. 1999-0888
Application No. 08/061,228
Claims 1 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as2
being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Ekusa.
Claims 2 through 5 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Ekusa and
Andersson.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 31,
mailed January 7, 1998) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to appellants' Brief (Paper
No. 30, filed October 14, 1997) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 32,
filed March 9, 1998) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 1
through 6 and 8.
The examiner states (Answer, page 4) that AAPA discusses
intracell handoff techniques for cellular telephone systems,
We note that claim 6 depends from claim 3 and, therefore, includes2
all of the limitations of claim 3. It is unclear to us how claim 3 but not
claim 6 can require Andersson in the rejection.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007