Appeal No. 2001-0656
Application No. 08/976,645
consistent with the claim limitations because the claims fail to
recite that a transmitter is switched off “in response” to an
extension request. We disagree. While the term “in response”
may not appear in the claims, it is clear from the claim language
that first an extension request is issued to the matched
secondary station and to further matched secondary stations after
setting up a communication link to a matched secondary station
which then switches off its transmitter. Thus, it is clear that
the transmitter is switched off after the extension request and
in response thereto and we interpret the claim language as such
in reaching our decision herein. Under such interpretation, it
is clear that there is no suggestion in Kapanen that would have
led the artisan to modify Yamashita in such a manner as to switch
off the transmitter of the matched secondary station upon
receiving an extension request from a primary station after a
communication link is established between the primary station and
the matched secondary station so that the matched secondary
station and further matched secondary stations have their
receivers ready for receiving a broadcast message from the
primary station.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1,
2, 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
-6–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007