Appeal No. 2000-1546
Application 08/588,149
unit before the mobile unit sends an access probe to the base
unit [translation, page 8]. The only question is whether this
minimum transmission information constitutes “signal power
received from said second [base] transceiver.” Although
appellants argue that the examiner’s interpretation of the
claimed phrase is inconsistent with the specification, we do not
agree. The specification does not provide that “signal power
received from said second transceiver” must be interpreted in
only one way. We agree with the examiner that, broadly speaking,
the transmission of information related to what signal power to
use in Imamura means that the determination is based on signal
power received from the base unit. In other words, we find that
the phrase in question is met by a disclosure in which the signal
power of the base unit is detected or by a disclosure in which
the signal power of the mobile unit is assigned based on
information from the base unit. The claims on appeal could
easily be amended to prevent this second interpretation from
applying.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007