Ex Parte CASHMAN et al - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2001-1563                                                        
          Application No. 09/151,580                                                  


               1.  A method for concurrently monitoring communications in a           
          first cellular communication system and a second cellular                   
          communication system, comprising the steps of:                              
               a.  registering a wireless subscriber station for                      
          communication in both the first and second communication systems;           
               b.  communicating in the first system until there is a lack            
          of activity in the first system for a first predetermined time              
          period;                                                                     
               c.  entering a sleep mode in the first system;                         
               d.  communicating in the second system for a second                    
          predetermined time period; and                                              
               e.  exiting the sleep mode in the first system and                     
          proceeding to step b.                                                       
               The prior art references of record relied upon by the                  
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                              
          Raith et al. (Raith)     5,806,007           Sep. 08, 1998                  
          T. Melanchuk et al., CDPD and emerging digital cellular systems,            
          Compcon '96, Feb. 25-28, 1966, at 2-8.  (Melanchuk)                         
               Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second                  
          paragraph, as being indefinite.                                             
               Claims 1 through 3, 6 through 9, and 16 stand rejected under           
          35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Raith.                           
               Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                
          unpatentable over Raith in view of Melanchuk.                               




                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007