Appeal No. 1999-1551
Application No. 08/547,736
We agree with the examiner that Barnes does not categorically reject the use of
cellular telephone networks. While Barnes mentions the use of cellular telephone networks
in the background section, at column 3, lines 45-48, and then mentions that there are
difficulties with handoff of communications, opting for a trunked system requiring fewer
handoffs, there is no indication that the portion of Barnes relied on by the examiner for the
teaching of sending a rejection signal would not be applicable to the system of Connolly as
modified by the teachings of Krebs.
Accordingly, in view of appellants’ unpersuasive arguments, we will sustain the
rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claim 9
specifies that the four least significant TPUI bits of the page request signal specify a mode
of user-alerting to be used by the handset.
The examiner takes the position that the “particular choice of such digits in the page
request signal would have been obvious...since the applicant has not disclosed that the
use of the four least significant TPUI bits in this context is of any particular purpose. It
appears the invention would perform equally well with any number of other well know [sic,
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007