Appeal No. 2002-0137
Application 09/069,765
meets the language of claim 1, which recites that, the
“evaluating transmissions” requires “using a result of the
determining step” where the determining is “if said remote
station is substantially stationary.” Even if we fully accept
the Examiner’s position in the rejection on appeal that all the
steps/components of claim 1 are found in Weaver, the reference
does not show those steps/components connected and interacting in
the way required by the claim language. We find Appellants’
argument persuasive.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
We do not reach a determination on whether Weaver teaches
the step in claim 1 of “determining if said remote station is
substantially stationary.” Such is not required for our
decision. We find that Weaver does not anticipate claim 1 even
if we were to assume that Weaver does teach the determining step.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007