Appeal No. 2002-1106
Application 09/058,687
The examiner indicates how the invention of representative
claim 1 is read on the disclosure of George [answer, page 3].
Appellants argue that the portions of George relied on by the
examiner do not support the examiner’s findings of anticipation.
Specifically, appellants argue that there is no teaching or
suggestion in George for the steps of distributing candidate home
channel numbers across a range of available channel numbers and
seeking a next available home channel. With respect to the
latter step, appellants argue that the home channel in George
remains unchanged. With respect to the former point, appellants
argue that there is no mention of candidate home channel numbers
in George. Appellants also argue that the assignment of idle
channels in George is not the same as seeking a next available
home channel as claimed [brief, pages 5-9].
The examiner responds that George teaches allowing for the
use of idle channels for subscriber communication when the
assigned home channel is not available. The examiner asserts
that the claimed candidate home channels do not distinguish over
the available idle channels of George since any of them are
clearly candidates for use as the subscriber’s communication or
home channel [answer, pages 4-5].
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007