Appeal No. 2002-1617
Application No. 08/752,020
set of RACH time window and communicating short message
acknowledgments during another set of time window...” but has set
forth no convincing rationale as to why the artisan would have
been led to constrain access requests and short message
acknowledgments to respective time windows on a RACH when, by all
accounts, Chennakeshu appears to teach against this. As
appellant points out, Chennakeshu teaches that acknowledgments
may be transmitted on “all time slots of the ...RACH” [column 8,
lines 6-8] and that it is preferable that consecutive repetitions
of a RACH message be transmitted on “separate carrier
frequencies” [column 8, line 18]. Even though acknowledgments in
Chennakeshu “may” be transmitted on “all” time slots and it is
“preferable” to transmit repetitions on “separate carrier
frequencies,” which means that other embodiments are available,
the examiner has not adequately shown that such other embodiments
would meet the instant claim language. Clearly, in the preferred
embodiments of the reference, acknowledgments in “all” time slots
is not an acknowledgment constrained to a first RACH message time
window and transmission of repetitions on “separate carrier
frequencies” is not a single carrier frequency as required by the
instant claims. Note, in claim 1, for example, that access
requests are communicated over “a” RACH frequency band and the
-5–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007