Appeal No. 2002-1236
Application No. 08/359,743
1362,1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Therefore, we look to the
language of dependent claim 5. Again, appellants argue that parent claim 1 sets forth
that the base station sends an echo-back request signal that is common or generic to all
the mobile units. (See brief at page 11.) As discussed above, we disagree with
appellants. Appellants argue that additionally when the control section of the base
station fails to receive an echo-back response from a given mobile station, it deletes the
data of the mobile station from the managing table. (See brief at page 11.) Again,
appellants have argued a limitation for which we find no express support in the
language of representative claim 5 for the argument that data is (immediately) deleted.
The examiner maintains that claim 5 is totally silent about deleting mobile station data.
(See answer at page 4.) We agree with the examiner that claim 5 merely recites
updating the managing table when the mobile station fails to transmit and echo-back
response signal.1 Appellants argue that the examiner does not address “an essential
feature of the claims 5 and 6, which is affirmatively deleting mobile station data from a
managing table whenever a mobile station leaves a radio zone of a base station,” but
appellants do not cite to any specific language in either claim to support this position.
(See brief at pages 12-13.) The examiner maintains that there is no support for this
argument. We agree with the examiner that appellants have not shown any claim
1 Here, we note that the language of dependent claim 5 is recited in terms of a failure to transmit
rather than a failure to receive a transmission from the mobile unit as in independent claim 6. We find no
difference in our interpretation for the present rejection.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007