Appeal No. 2001-2052
Application No. 08/943,427
Eriksson et al. (Eriksson) 5,448,750 Sep. 5, 1995
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11, 13-15, 17, and 19-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Kanai in view of Eriksson.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 21, mailed Nov. 21, 2000) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 20, filed Sep. 5, 2000) and reply brief
(Paper No. 22, filed Dec. 20, 2000) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellant argues that the examiner has not resolved the conflicting teachings of
Kanai and Eriksson regarding the action to be performed when the carrier-to-
interference ratio is lower than a lower bound. (See brief at pages 5-6.) We agree with
appellant and find that the examiner has not provided a convincing line of reasoning
supported by substantial evidence that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to use the teaching of Eriksson with respect to handing off an on-going
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007