Appeal No. 1999-1109
Application No. 08/359,904
Chia, Tanaka and Benveniste, or Ivanov or Kojima or
Ramsdale or Yamada or Mende
Examiner rejects claims 17-19 under this combination at
pages 10-12 of the Examiner’s answer. Examiner asserts, id. at
10, that “Tanaka teaches the well known use, and the Examiner
takes also official notice as such, of means for sensing
absolute velocity of the telephone without regard to relative
velocity of the telephone relative to the base station in a
radio station for the purpose of operating a radio telephone
base on the radio telephone speed.” The Examiner further
states, id. at 10-11, “it would have been obvious ... to
incorporate the well know (sic) use of means for sensing
absolute velocity of the telephone without regard to relative
velocity of the telephone relative to the base station in the
radio telephone of Chia in order to operate a radio telephone
base on the radio telephone speed.” Appellant argues, brief at
page 18, that “Tanaka does not indicate if the ‘traveling speed’
is absolute velocity or relative velocity. Furthermore, even
if Tanaka and Chia were combined, they would only suggest adding
reception of position registration information, based upon a
time interval calculated with speed estimator 64, to the
20
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007