Appeal No. 2002-1194
Application No. 08/534,808
obvious since the operation of the system would not have changed
(id.).
Appellants argue that POCSAG discloses a recommended
standard for radiopaging systems wherein each transmission starts
with a preamble for attaining bit synchronization and preparing
for acquiring word synchronization (brief, page 8). While
acknowledging that the table in section 3.3.1 of POCSAG shows
synchronization codewords having 32 bits and the value of the bit
in position 32 to be “zero” (id.), Appellants argue that this
limited evidence does not teach all of the claimed limitations
(brief, page 9). Additionally, Appellants assert that the
portion of the specification at page 28 is discussed in order to
describe the claimed limitations that were not considered by the
Examiner (brief, page 10).
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner asserts
that Appellants’ arguments are merely general allegations
“without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims
patentably distinguishes then from the references [sic]” (answer,
page 4). Additionally, for the first time in the prosecution,
the Examiner outlines a more detailed rejection of claim 1 in the
answer and explains how the alleged teachings in POCSAG would
have suggested the claimed limitations (answer, pages 5-8).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007