Appeal No. 2000-1557
Application 08/384,456
We consider first the rejection of claims 7-9 and 17
based on the teachings of Blakeney and Falconer. These claims
stand or fall together as a single group [brief, page 5]. The
examiner finds that Blakeney teaches the claimed invention except
for the encoding of each of the transmitted signals with a
different scrambling code. The examiner cites Falconer as
teaching the use of unique scrambling codes to eliminate cross
talk and make it difficult to eavesdrop or track calls. The
examiner finds that it would have been obvious to the artisan to
use the scrambling codes of Falconer in the communications system
of Blakeney [answer, pages 5-6].
Appellants argue that there is no indication that
problems exist in Blakeney which could be solved by use of
different scrambling codes as claimed. Appellants also argue
that Blakeney does not teach the use of signal strengths as
claimed [brief, pages 10-12]. The examiner responds that
different scrambling codes enhance the security of a
communications system as taught by Falconer. The examiner also
responds that the recitations of claim 7 are broad enough to read
on the transmission of signal strengths as disclosed by Blakeney
[answer, pages 15-16].
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007