Appeal No. 2000-0326 Page 5
Application No. 08/644,465
determine a comparison which is defined as a quality measure
(which reads determining [sic] the distance between base
station received station) which may be used for hand-off (See
abstract, fig.2 and 3 and co1.2, line 63 to col.3, line 16)."
(Final Rejection at 3.) The appellants argue, "Tarallo et al.
and Menich et al. (alone or in combination) fail to teach or
otherwise suggest handoff based on a phase shift, where the
phase shift is based on a time between a base station's
transmitted signal and a corresponding received signal
transmitted from a remote unit. . . ." (Appeal Br. at 7-8.)
In deciding anticipation, “the first inquiry must be into
exactly what the claims define.” In re Wilder, 429 F2d 447,
450, 166 USPQ 545, 548 (CCPA 1970). Similarly, in deciding
obviousness, “[a]nalysis begins with a key legal question --
what is the invention claimed?” Panduit Corp. v. Dennison
Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir.
1987).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007