Appeal No. 2002-2179
Application No. 08/839,861
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by
Johnson.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Brickell.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Ishikawa or Cox.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Brickell and Uola.
Claims 1-4 and 7-9 stand allowed. A rejection against claim 11 was withdrawn
subsequent to the final rejection. Claim 11 stands objected to as depending from a
rejected claim.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 18) and the Examiner’s Answer
(Paper No. 25) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief (Paper No.
24) and the Reply Brief (Paper No. 31) for appellants’ position with respect to the claims
which stand rejected.
OPINION
Claim 10
The examiner contends that Johnson anticipates instant claim 10 because the
reference discloses, inter alia, a radiocommunication system transmitting, associated
with an emergency call, an indication to a mobile unit to transmit with “continuous
transmission.” The central station grants a communication channel to any subscriber
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007