Appeal No. 2000-2237
Application 08/723,712
of the applied references teaches or suggests a single
transceiver operable in two control protocols. Schellinger
discloses two modes of operation (cellular and cordless) but uses
a single protocol for these modes. The examiner contends
otherwise, referring to column 7, lines 60-65, of Schellinger to
show that the two protocols are “similar” but that Schellinger
does not require the “same” protocol. The examiner’s reliance on
this portion of Schellinger is misplaced. What is referred to as
“similar” here is a signalling “message” from the cordless base
station and “that transmitted in the conventional system” but
there is no indication that protocols employed for the two
different modes of operation in Schellinger are different and
that such different protocols operate from the same single
transceiver, as claimed.
The instant rejection is reversible for this reason alone.
However, even the examiner’s rationale for the combination is
found wanting. The examiner contends that it would have been
obvious to combine the references “in order to prevent a
duplicate registration within the wireless network.” However, we
again agree with appellants that there would have been no reason
to employ anything in Nagashima for the purpose of avoiding
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007