Appeal No. 1999-0888
Application No. 08/061,228
but "fails to show the handoff techniques comprising the step
of handing off a first call to another channel if the first
call is interfering with the second call." The examiner turns
to Ekusa to cure the deficiency of AAPA, asserting (Answer,
page 4) that "Ekusa teaches ... the step of handing off a
first call to another channel if the first call is interfering
with the second call wherein the first call having the same
frequency with the second call despite the quality of the
first call being sufficient quality to not warrant hand off."
The examiner's motivation for combining the two disclosures is
"to obtain the sufficient channel for the mobile unit" (see
Answer, page 4).
Appellants explain (Brief, page 10) that in Ekusa, the
call experiencing interference is the one that changes
channels, much like the prior art described in AAPA. In other
words, Ekusa does not teach handing off to another channel the
call causing the interference, as asserted by the examiner.
Upon reading Ekusa we agree with appellants that Ekusa fails
to teach the claim limitations lacking from AAPA.
The examiner argues (Answer, pages 6-7) that when a first
call interferes with a second call, the two calls actually
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007