Appeal No. 2002-2292 Application No. 09/139,749 controller 12 sends handoff request (which includes address and binding information to the each of the new destination nodes 22); and column 10, lines 5-30, discusses how the destination nodes use the address and binding information to support a new diversity leg of communication. Appellants’ first argument is that claims 1-4 are not properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) because Muszynski did not issue more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States. The argument is not persuasive because the rejection is under 35 U.S.C. 102(e). Appellants also argue, at page 8 of the principal brief, that Muszynski fails to disclose certain steps of claim 1, and then proceeds to list every step in the claim. Such a recitation is not helpful since it does not specify the specific step or steps on which appellants are focusing. At page 9 of the principal brief, appellants are more specific, stating that “nowhere in Muszynski...is there any disclosure of CN-RNC interface streamlining, nevertheless a method for reconfiguring diversity legs during CN-RNC interface streamlining as recited in independent claim 1.” The examiner points to column 5, lines 10-15, for a discussion of diversity legs in a radio network, but we agree with appellants that -4-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007