Appeal No. 2000-1556
Application No. 08/771,426
Furthermore, the Examiner must also produce factual basis
supported by teaching in a prior art reference or shown to be
common knowledge of unquestionable demonstration, consistent with
the holding in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). Our
reviewing court requires this evidence in order to establish a
prima facie case. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223
USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664,
668, 148 USPQ 268, 271-72 (CCPA 1966). However, “the Board must
not only assure that the requisite findings are made, based on
evidence of record, but must also explain the reasoning by which
the findings are deemed to support the agency’s conclusion.”
In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir.
2002).
As the Examiner and Appellants concede, Leung teaches a
communications system, as depicted in Figure 1, in which the base
station prioritizes call handling and handoff of a mobile unit to
either a macrocell or a microcell as the mobile unit moves across
the covered cell grid (col. 2, lines 31-36 and col. 8, lines 31-
31-58). The mobile unit monitors, accumulates and processes a
number of mobility and teletraffic statistics for that unit to
generate a mobility index which is used for assigning the mobile
unit and handoff to a macrocell or microcell (col. 9, line 19-27
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007