Appeal No. 2001-1563
Application No. 09/151,580
filing of the application," (b) "a determination of whether or
not claimed subject matter is definite is made at the time of
filing the patent application," and (c) "[a]t the time of filing
the present application, there existed an IS-136 specification
that was determinable by one of ordinary skill in the art." We
agree. The claimed IS-136 specification was determinable at the
time of filing, and thus is definite. Further, it is not clear
whether the claimed specification has changed anyway.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
The examiner (Answer, pages 4-10) rejects claims 1 through
3, 6 through 9, and 16 as being anticipated by Raith. The
examiner (Answer, page 9) points to figure 6(b) of Raith as
disclosing the steps of claim 1. In particular, the examiner
indicates that appellants' step of communicating in a first
system until there is a lack of activity for a first
predetermined time period corresponds to Raith's arrow 1 (which
leads to the CDPD active mode) and arrow 2 (the "active timer").
The examiner continues that appellants' entering a sleep mode in
the first system corresponds to Raith's CDPD passive mode at the
end of the active timer. We agree with the examiner up to this
point. However, the examiner contends that appellants'
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007