Appeal No. 2002-1130
Application 09/224,234
not provide this teaching as well. Therefore, we will not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 through 6, 10
through 12, 16, and 17 for the reasons above.
The Examiner has rejected claims 18 through 20 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Scotton in view of
Erving. For this rejection, we note that the Examiner is relying
on Erving for disclosing “means for including received broadcast
information about which modulation methods the base stations
support in the generation of said comparison information” as
recited in Appellants’ claim 18. See page 9 of the Examiner’s
final rejection. As pointed out above, we fail to find that the
Examiner has established that Erving teaches receiving broadcast
information about modulation type as recited in Appellants’ claim
18. Furthermore, we fail to find that Erving or Scotton suggests
this limitation. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 18 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007