Appeal No. 2002-1435
Application No. 08/861,213
Section 102 rejection of claims 18-23 and 26-35
Appellant traverses the rejection of claims 18-23 and 26-35 as being anticipated
by Vucetic. The rejection reads the “subscriber station information” on the dialing rule
database described by the reference. According to appellant, however, Vucetic fails to
show a data transfer procedure of the radio connection between the terminal equipment
and the data transfer system being selected on the basis of the subscriber station
information, as expressed in instant claim 18.
Although appellant’s arguments suggest otherwise, appellant’s “Summary of the
Invention” in the Brief does not point out any particular difference in the radio
connection per se on the basis of the subscriber station information. Nor do we find
any description of such in the instant disclosure. For example, as shown in instant
Figures 3 and 4, and described at pages 7 and 8 of the specification, telephone or
telefax is selected, based on subscriber station information, by control of switches 416,
417, rather than by adjusting RF part 413.
Vucetic describes “dialing rules,” and provides an example of an “end of dialing
sequence” that may detect the end of the dialing sequence for “911.” Vucetic further
describes type of dialing rules that may be created, such as:
autodial options that enable the WT [wireless terminal] to immediately dial
a number when an off hook condition is sensed, sending of a signal to an
operator when an interdigit time out interval of a particular duration is
sensed as well as other dialing rules allowing the recognition of long
distance numbers, the interposing of telephone credit card accounts, and
other flexible functions associated with dialing.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007