Appeal No. 2002-1435
Application No. 08/861,213
Vucetic col. 5, ll. 58-64. The wireless terminal applies the pertinent dialing rules and
sends the dialed number to the base station, according to the rules in effect. Col. 6, ll.
5-27; Fig. 3.
Although we appreciate the differences between appellant’s invention as
disclosed and the disclosure of Vucetic, we agree with the examiner that the instant
claims are so broad as to embrace the system of Vucetic within their scope. A selected
“data transfer procedure” as set forth by instant claim 18 requires no more than giving
effect to the dialing rules as described by Vucetic.
Appellant further argues there is no selection based on a “connection identifier,”
as recited in representative claim 19. The examiner responds (Answer at 6) that the
dialing information of Vucetic “contains the information (identifier) of attached
subscribers i.e. phone, fax, and computer.”
Instant claim 19 requires “at least two” connection identifiers. Figure 2 of Vucetic
shows parallel connections from phone line interface 26 to the subscriber equipment.
We find no disclosure of separate identifiers for the equipment. We are persuaded by
appellant that the rejection of claim 19 is erroneous.
We thus sustain the section 102 rejection of claims 18 and 26-35. We do not
sustain the rejection of claim 19, nor of the claims incorporating the limitations of 19
(i.e., claims 20-23).
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007