Appeal No. 2002-2045
Application No. 08/874,005
to be fully met by the disclosure of Heidari [answer, pages 3-4].
Appellant argues that Heidari teaches the use of cellular-phone
compression protocols rather than the use of a digitized cordless
communications compression scheme as claimed. Specifically,
appellant argues that the CDMA/TDMA protocols used in cellular
phones are not cordless communication compression schemes as
claimed [brief, pages 9-10]. The examiner responds that the
Heidari processor can be used for other types of phones and the
compression technique is the same regardless of whether the phone
is cordless or cellular. The examiner notes Horimoto and asserts
that it would have been obvious to use the Heidari processor in
cordless communication [answer, page 7]. Appellant responds that
the examiner has improperly relied on teachings from Horimoto to
support the anticipation rejection based on Heidari. Appellant
also argues that there is no disclosure that cellular-phone
compression schemes can be employed in cordless communications
[reply brief].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1,
2, 5, 6 (and 13) as anticipated by Heidari for essentially the
reasons argued by appellant in the briefs. The examiner has
failed to respond to appellant’s argument that the cellular-phone
compression schemes of Heidari are not a digitized cordless
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007