Appeal No. 2001-0905
Application No. 09/163,412
supports this conclusion (Brief, page 10) by quoting step
(B) of claim 16, stating that independent claims 16 and 17
require such step and that Application No. 09/107,025 does
not contain these limitations. Appellant then quotes steps
(A) and (B) of independent claim 16 of Application No.
09/107,025 and asserts that these limitations are not found
in the claims under rejection. Appellant concludes (Brief,
pages 12 and 13) that there is two way distinctness between
the two applications.
Our careful comparison of claim 16 of the present
application and claim 16 of Application No. 09/107,025
reveals that the two claims are word-for-word identical
except for a portion of part (1) of step (B). Specifically,
the portion in question in the present application reads
"synchronizing a duration of a first time interval related
to a first parameter (T204)" whereas the corresponding
portion of Application No. 09/107,025 reads "synchronizing
the timing of a first time interval" (underlining added to
emphasize the actual language that differs). The words
"duration" and "timing" mean the same thing, and a mere
difference in linguistics, rather than substance, does not
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007