Appeal No. 2003-0506 Page 4
Application No. 09/264,766
Furthermore, they do not argue the patentability of the dependent claims. Therefore,
claims 2-14 and 17-45 stand or fall with representative claim 1. With this representation
in mind, rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we
focus on the following three points of contention therebetween:
• indication of pending message
• combination of Dent and Ayerst
• responsiveness of broadcast on second channel.
A. INDICATION OF PENDING MESSAGE
The examiner finds that "Ayerst (col. 2, lines 10-22)," (Examiner's Answer at 4),
discloses that "[t]he first channel broadcasts a vector which indicates indicates [sic] a
pending message (the long message) that is to be broadcast on the second channel."
(Id.) The appellants argue, "Ayerst fails to disclose a base station that broadcasts on a
first channel an indication of a pending message that is to be broadcast on a second
channel along with an identity of the second channel." (Appeal Br. at 9.)
In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe the representative claim at issue to determine its scope. Second, we
determine whether the construed claim would have been obvious.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007