Appeal No. 2000-2254
Application No. 08/746,746
Since independent claim 36 contains recitations similar
to independent claim 13, we do not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claim 36 or of claims 37-40 or 42-46 which depend
therefrom.
With respect to independent claim 24, appellant argues
that Schellinger does not teach selecting and re-selecting
telephone systems based on a predetermined criterion and D’Amico
relates to a single telephone system [brief, pages 15-16]. The
examiner responds that D’Amico teaches that bit error rate and
frame error rate are factors to be considered in determining
whether a radio telephone signal should be handed off to another
channel. The examiner reiterates that it would have been obvious
to the artisan to use this information in the radio telephone
system of Schellinger [answer, pages 22-23].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 24. We
agree with the examiner that the applied prior art teaches that a
radio telephone signal should be selected based on the criterion
of bit error rate or frame error rate. The artisan would have
found it obvious in the system of Schellinger to select the
telephone system which provides the lower bit error rate or frame
error rate under certain circumstances.
-15-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007