Appeal No. 2001-2029
Application No. 09/095,170
located in cells adjacent to said cell.”
The appellant appears to make a reasonable argument here and
the examiner offers no response to this argument in the response
section of the answer. All we are left with is the examiner’s
original rejection, pointing to column 2, line 59-column 5, line
45, of Bonta for a teaching of the claimed “collecting location
information and signal information at each of said plurality of
sections within said cell for signals transmitted by said base
station and other base stations located in cells adjacent to said
cell.”
Since we do not find such a teaching and the examiner has
not specifically pointed to a section of Bonta alleged to teach
this limitation, preferring, instead, to merely make reference to
more than 3 full columns of the patent reference, the examiner
has not convinced us of the correctness of his position.
This, taken together with no teaching of Bonta even being
directed to locating a mobile telephone within a cellular
telephone communication network, convinces us that the examiner
has not established a prima facie case of anticipation, within
the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007