Appeal No. 2002-1617
Application No. 08/752,020
short message acknowledgments are communicated over “the,” i.e.,
the same, RACH carrier frequency band. Thus, the claims require
a single RACH frequency band and the examiner has not shown where
Chennakeshu suggests the communication of access requests and
short message acknowledgments over the “same,” or single, random
access channel carrier (RACH) frequency band.
Since all of the rejected independent claims contain similar
language regarding constraining access requests and short message
acknowledgments to respective time windows on a random access
channel carrier (RACH) and the use of a single frequency band, we
will not sustain the rejection of any of the claims under
35 U.S.C. 103, noting, with regard to dependent claims 3, 4, 11,
13, 16, 17, 25 and 26, that the addition of Macario does not
remedy the deficiencies of Chennakeshu.
-6–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007