Appeal No. 2000-0972
Application No. 08/679,848
8, respectively, to any mobile units that might be in the area
(page 130, column 1). According to Klandrud (page 130, column
2), “[t]he beacons 5, 6 are located far enough away from the
RA site so that they do not cause interference with the RA
receiver.” If a mobile unit does not receive a warning beacon
message, then the user of the mobile unit assumes that
transmission from the mobile unit will not interfere with the
sensitive receiver RA (page 130, column 2). On the other
hand, “[i]f a mobile unit 2 can receive a beacon transmission
7 or 8, then the mobile unit must decide if it is acceptable
to transmit” (page 130, column 2).
Based upon the statement in Klandrud (page 130, column 1)
that “[a]ny or all of the concepts described herein can be
used to protect a receiver (stationary or mobile) from
interfering units (mobile or stationary),” the examiner
reaches the conclusion (answer, page 4) that Klandrud is “not
specific to a radio astronomy service,” and that “Klandrud et
al[.] does indeed suggests that other communications systems
can be implemented using the same concept of radio frequency
interference reduction.”
We agree with the examiner’s inference that both Klandrud
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007