Appeal No. 2001-1212
Application No. 08/777,986
though the repeater is stationary, and there would be no issue of
destroying the mobility of the test set.
Appellant further argues (Brief, page 7) that there is no
reason why the test set of Szabo needs to be integrated with the
repeater to perform tests on it. However, as explained above,
the repeater is integrated with the mobile radio system not with
the mobile test set. Additionally, the examiner suggests testing
the repeater because it has been integrated with the radio
system, not integrating the repeater with the test set to perform
tests on the repeater.
Lastly, appellant states (Brief, page 8) that he "does not
dispute the fact that a repeater expands coverage area of a
wireless network, but maintains that this fact is irrelevant
since the test set of Szabo is intended to test a network and not
to expand coverage." Again appellant appears to have missed the
examiner's point. The examiner proposed expanding coverage of
the wireless network being tested by adding a repeater, not
modifying the test set. Thus, appellant's arguments are not
persuasive, and we will sustain the obviousness rejection of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007