Appeal No. 2002-1130
Application 09/224,234
record, but must also explain the reasoning by which the findings
are deemed to support the agency’s conclusion.” In re Lee, 277
F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Independent claims 1 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Erving in view of Billström.
Appellants point out that the key claimed limitation of
Appellants’ invention is that at least one broadcast message is
used to notify a terminal of which modulation methods are
supported by certain base stations. Appellants note that the
Examiner has relied on Erving for teaching this limitation.
Appellants argue that although Erving teaches that the terminal
searches for, and possibly detects, the existence of an operative
AMPS system, Appellants argue that Erving does not teach a
broadcast message from a base station which notifies the terminal
of which modulation methods are supported by the base station.
See pages 5 through 7 of the brief.
In response, the Examiner states that “it is inherent that a
broadcast message to enable a wireless terminal become aware of
supported modulation methods is used, since when a wireless
mobile terminal is turned on, the wireless mobile terminal seeks
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007