Appeal No. 2002-2000
Application No. 08/933,911
separately stated as well that the subject matter of claims 9-12
may be considered obvious over the teaching value of Reininghaus
alone.
Beginning with representative independent claim 9 on appeal,
this claim and claims 10-12 appear to read upon appellants second
embodiment disclosed in Figure 4. In the approach in this
embodiment, there’s no requirement of an identifier as in claims
1-8.
The discussion in the long paragraph in column 1 beginning at
line 21 through line 57 of Reininghaus appears to us to have been
consistent with the prior art alleged by appellant in the disclosed
invention. When a mobile station or user moves from a first mobile
radio station region into another mobile station region, it is
considered to be a roaming situation and the appropriate home
register information of the mobile station is transferred to the
new mobile radio region “when setting up a radio contact in the new
region” or, as stated otherwise, when a call is made by the user of
the mobile station in the new region. On the other hand, the focus
of the disclosure in Reinginghaus as set forth substantially in
column 2 is that before the user transfers the mobile station to a
new region, it is the user who transfers the home register
identifying data to the new home register in the new mobile radio
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007