Appeal No. 1999-0888
Application No. 08/061,228
interfere with each other. Accordingly, the examiner takes
the position that each of the two calls interferes and each is
interfered with, so that it makes no difference which call is
handed off to another frequency. This line of reasoning is
incorrect, and completely misses the point of the invention.
If a first call has a strong signal and a second call has a
weak signal, the first call would interfere significantly with
the second call, whereas the second call would have little to
no effect on the first call. Therefore, appellants' claimed
invention requires the first call, the strong signal that
causes the interference, to change channels, since the second
call, having a weak signal, may not be able to change
channels. Thus, the examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness, and we cannot sustain the rejection
of claim 1 and its dependent claim 6.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2 through 5 and 8, the
examiner adds Andersson to the primary rejection for a
suggestion to check the interference levels on one time slot
in the downlink and on all time slots in the uplink. However,
claims 2 through 5 and 8 depend from claim 1 and include all
of the limitations thereof, and Andersson fails to cure the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007