Appeal No. 2001-1926
Application 08/777,722
within switch node 101 relate to terminal emulation application
functions. Neither the TMA nor the TEA functions correlate
to the claimed call functions and handset functions of
representative claim 12 on appeal. At least from the abstract
and the summary of the invention of Bales, these types of
functions recited in the claim appear to be performed by the
communications switching system 107 in Figure 1 of Bales rather
than to be distributed in any manner to the respective switching
nodes 101 and 130 in this figure. We read Bales in much the same
manner as argued by appellants in the brief, that this reference
does not indicate that it performs any handoff functions at all,
let alone the specific type of handoff functions recited in
representative independent claim 12 on appeal. Even if we were
to agree with the examiner's view that a type of switchover
operation occurs within Bales, the correlation does not exist to
the functions of a handoff operation as recited in representative
claim 12 on appeal.
Since we have found that the examiner has not set forth a
prima facie case of anticipation within 35 U.S.C. § 102, the
rejection on this basis of corresponding method and apparatus
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007