Appeal No. 2003-0469
Application No. 09/317,480
On page 10 of the brief, appellant argues that the examiner provides
superficial arguments by analogizing the relationship between a sectors of a cell
and the parent cell to the relationship between a cell of a network and the
network. On pages 11 and 12 of the brief, the appellant argues that the
examiner does not provide a showing of equivalence between these
relationships. As stated supra we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that Benveniste implicitly teaches transfer of channels between
sectors. As our holding does not rely on an analogy concerning the relationship
between a sector of a cell and the parent cell to the relationship between a cell of
a network and the network, we consider appellant’s arguments on pages 11 and
12 of the brief to be moot. Nonetheless, we find that the examiner’s analogy is
supported by the disclosure of Benveniste which teaches that during channel
(re)-allocation that cells and sectors are treated similarly, see Column 11, lines
35 to 37, which states" channels are selected so that the number of channels
allocated to each cell or sector is proportional . . ."
For the aforementioned reasons we sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 1and 2 under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Yu and
Benveniste.
Next we consider the rejection of claims 3, 6 and 7 under 35 USC § 103
as being unpatentable over Yu, Benveniste and Borst. As stated supra we,
17
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007