Appeal No. 2001-2052
Application No. 08/943,427
(See brief at page 8.) The examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Kanai to handoff calls as taught and
suggested by Eriksson and merely makes the substitution and discusses the
substitution at pages 7-8 of the answer without actually setting forth a line of reasoning
why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention. The examiner’s rationale that one viable option is to handoff the call and the
other viable option is to increase power. (See answer at pages 9-10.) We do not find
that the mere fact that each is a viable option is a motivation to modify one teaching
without something more to suggest the change. Here, we do not find that the examiner
has provided such a teaching, suggestion or line of reasoning. Therefore, we cannot
sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2, 3, and 5.
Since we find similar limitations in independent claims 7, 13, and 19, we will not sustain
the rejection of these claims and their dependent claims.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007