Appeal No. 1999-1551
Application No. 08/547,736
We have reviewed the cited portion of Barnes. We agree with appellants that that
section appears to refer to subaudio band signalling. Since it is unclear how this section
has any relevance to the instant claimed subject matter, and the examiner has not
responded to appellants’ argument in the answer, we will not sustain the rejection of claim
10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 17-19 are similar to claims 11-13 in their recitation of different types of
digital cordless radio telephone systems. For the reasons, supra, with regard to claims
11-13, we will sustain the rejection of claims 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Finally, we turn to the rejection of independent claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants argue that it is not seen where the combination of references “either
expressly discloses or suggests that a total number of user handsets that respond to a
broadcast message that includes information for specifying a user handset alerting
command, in a ‘digital cordless radio telephone system,’ is not constrained by a value of
N, where N is a number of slots of the digital radio link” [principal brief-page 13].
18
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007