Appeal No. 2002-1617
Application No. 08/752,020
The examiner relies on the following references:
Chennakeshu et al. (Chennakeshu) 5,822,310 Oct. 13, 1998
(filed Dec. 27, 1995)
Macario, “CELLULAR RADIO Principles and Design”, The MacMillan
Press LTD, Published 1993, pp. 162-163.
Claims 1, 3-6, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16-19, 23 and 25-28 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. As evidence of obviousness, the
examiner offers Chennakeshu with regard to claims 1, 5, 6, 10,
14, 18, 19, 23, 27 and 28, adding Macario with regard to claims
3, 4, 11, 13, 16, 17, 25 and 26.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective
positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
Turning first to the rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 14,
18, 19, 23, 27 and 28, the examiner contends that Chennakeshu
teaches everything but the specific disclosure “that the
communication of access requests from the plurality of
radiotelephone...on the RACH carrier frequency band is
constrained to occur during the first RACH message time window
and communicating short message acknowledgments during second
RACH message time window” [answer-pages 3-4]. However, the
-3–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007