Appeal No. 2002-2179
Application No. 08/839,861
required by instant claim 12. However, just as claim 12 does not preclude other modes
between identification of an emergency call and entry of the low power mode, the claim
does not preclude other modes responsive to other means.
For the foregoing reasons we sustain the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as being anticipated by Brickell.
Claim 13
The examiner offers the combination of Brickell and Uola to show prima facie
obviousness of the subject matter of instant claim 13. (Final Rejection at 4.) We
consider the rejection to be well founded. Appellants have provided no separate
arguments in defense of claim 13, which depends from claim 12. We sustain the
rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Brickell and
Uola.
Claim 5
The examiner contends that both Ishikawa and Cox disclose that dynamic
channel allocation is based on position or location of mobile units. The examiner takes
“Official Notice” that using an “adjunct system,” such as GPS or LORAN, to “receive
position information” was well known in the art. The examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to modify Ishikawa and Cox “with a known adjunct system” such as
GPS or LORAN to receive the position information so as to receive accurate position
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007