Appeal No. 2000-2254
Application No. 08/746,746
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 5. We
agree with the examiner that access rights will inherently
determine system selection because a system with no access rights
will clearly not be selected by the radio telephone of
Schellinger and Gillig over a system with access rights.
Thus, we have sustained the examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, 3 and 5. Since dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 9 and 11 have
not been separately argued by appellant, we also sustain the
rejection of these claims.
With respect to independent claim 47, appellant’s
arguments are essentially the same arguments we considered above
with respect to claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claim 47 for the same reasons discussed above with
respect to claim 1.
We now consider the rejection of claim 8 based on the
teachings of Schellinger, Gillig and Ramsdale. The examiner
cites Ramsdale as teaching that it was known to use velocity as a
criterion for handoff of a signal [answer, page 6]. Appellant
argues that there is no disclosure in the applied prior art of
using velocity to automatically select between respective
communication means [brief, page 9]. The examiner responds that
Ramsdale teaches using velocity as the predetermined criterion
-10-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007