Appeal No. 2002-1511
Application No. 09/026,936
35 U.S.C. § 102
Appellant argues that Barratt has been misinterpreted by the examiner and that
Barratt does not teach or suggest the limitation “denying radio communication on said
assigned radio channel during said chosen time slot in a controlled number of radio
fixed parts surrounding said activated radio fixed parts.” Appellants argue that Barratt
teaches which terminals can communicate using a particular channel without
interference. (See supplemental brief at page 2.) The examiner maintains that Barratt
teaches the above denying limitation at page 3 of the answer and cites to 8 portions of
Barratt. We have reviewed those specific teachings of Barratt and do not find that
Barratt teaches “denying radio communication on said assigned radio channel during
said chosen time slot in a controlled number of radio fixed parts surrounding said
activated radio fixed parts” as recited in independent claim 1. We agree with appellant
that Barratt does not deny radio communication on an assigned radio channel, but
determines channel assignment. The examiner maintains that
[s]uch a channel assignment [each subscriber is communication with their
respective antenna element on the same channel and time slot as the
other subscribers] can be done if the system so desires to allocate the
channels in that manner. Therefore the Barratt system can assign
different subscribers (A-M) the same channel and time slot, but
communication with different antenna elements (A-M) . . . the system must
deny subscriber (A) access to that channel and time slot in the other
antenna elements (B-M).
To the extent that the rejection may be based on the principles of inherency, we note
that our reviewing court has set out clear standards for a showing of inherency, which
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007