Appeal No. 2002-1617
Application No. 08/752,020
examiner concludes that since Chennakeshu discloses transmission
of access requests and short message acknowledgments over the
RACH channels in different time slots, citing column 3, lines 31-
42, and column 8, lines 54-57, it would have been obvious “to
utilize the teachings of Chennakeshu, as elaborated in col. 2,
lines 61 through col. 3, lines 1-42, in order to transmit access
requests on the RACH carrier during a particular set of RACH time
window and communicating short message acknowledgments during
another set of time window...” [answer-page 4].
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 14,
18, 19, 23, 27 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 because, in our view,
the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness.
The examiner appears to acknowledge that the applied
reference does not specifically teach the very improvement over
the prior art that appellant has made, that is, constraining
access requests and short message acknowledgments to respective
time windows on a random access channel carrier (RACH). Yet, the
examiner contends that it would have been obvious to do what
appellant has done. The examiner opines that it would have been
obvious to “utilize the teachings of Chennakeshu...in order to
transmit access requests on the RACH carrier during a particular
-4–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007