Appeal No. 1999-1109
Application No. 08/359,904
Further, with respect to claim 11, Appellant argues, brief
at page 9, that this claim “calls for two distinct radio
telephone systems; a micro-cellular telephone system and a
macro-cellular telephone system. However, Gudmundson et al.
merely discloses different size cells in a single radio
telephone system.” We disagree. In our view, claim 11 does not
recite any different types of telephone systems, it merely asks
for a micro cellular telephone system and a macro cellular
telephone system; and Gudmunson clearly shows a telephone system
which utilizes both a macro cellular system and a micro cellular
system, as the Examiner has pointed out in his Examiner’s
answer.
Regarding claims 12 and 21, brief at pages 9 and 10,
Appellant makes the same argument that these claims recite two
different radio telephone systems having different types of base
stations. However, for the same reason as for claim 11, we
uphold the rejection of these claims as explained by the
Examiner at pages 5 and 6 of the Examiner’s answer. Therefore,
we sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 11-13, 15 and 21
by Gudmundson.
Chia
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007