Appeal No. 1999-1515
Application No. 08/451,719
Turning to a consideration of independent claim 30, and
its dependent claims 31 and 32, directed to the feature of
preventing establishment of a communication link over at least
one channel on determination of departure of a mobile terminal
from a “steady state” zone, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of these claims as well. We agree with
Appellants (Brief, page 9) that this aspect of this invention,
which reserves at least one channel so that it can be used for
possible call “hand-off,” is not taught or suggested by any of
the applied prior art references.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007