Appeal No. 1999-2826
Application No. 08/696,247
With respect to the obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 7,
the sole independent claims on appeal, based on the combination
of Havel and Reed, Appellants assert the Examiner’s failure to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness since all of the
claimed limitations are not taught or suggested by the applied
prior art references. In particular, Appellants contend:
In the primary reference, Havel, the received
power is measured (circuit 5 in Fig. 1). In Havel,
there is no power control bit channel, the receiver
is not tuned to a power control bit channel, no
power control bits are accumulated and no
prediction is made from the accumulated power
control bits. [Brief, page 6.]
After reviewing the Havel reference in light of the
arguments of record, we are in agreement with Appellants’
position as stated in the Brief. We do not dispute the
Examiner’s assertion of similarities between Havel’s disclosure
and Appellants’ claimed invention, i.e., both use predicted power
parameter values to dynamically adjust the power level output of
a mobile station. In focusing on these similarities, however,
the Examiner has, in our view, ignored the clear distinctions
between Havel and the invention as set forth in the appealed
claims.
In contrast to the system of Havel which operates on a
received frequency signal to develop a power measurement signal
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007