Appeal No. 2003-0506 Page 6
Application No. 09/264,766
explicitly and inherently. . . ." In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1386, 59 USPQ2d 1693,
1697(Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ
459, 467 (1966); In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 998, 50 USPQ 1614, 1616 (Fed. Cir.
1999); In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
Here, Ayerst discloses a "transmission format of an outbound signaling
protocol. . ." Col. 8, l. 61. "The signaling protocol is subdivided into protocol divisions,
which [include] an hour 310, a cycle 320, [and] a frame 330. . ." Col. 8, l. 67 - col. 9,
l. 2. "A frame 330 is further defined to be one of two specific types. . . . The first type
of frame 330 is a control frame 360." Col. 9, ll. 32-34. "Information is included in each
control frame 360 in fields, comprising system information in a system information
field (SI) 332, one or more selective call addresses with subvectors in an address
field (AF) 333, [and] one or more of a set of vector packets. . . ." Id. at ll. 35-40.
The appellants admit that the vectors "indicate that a long message is
transmitted on a second channel different than the channel that a user terminal uses to
receive or detect the vector." (Appeal Br. at 7.) For its part, the reference explains that
"[t]he vectors contain information which specifies the starting word of a long message,
in terms of the protocol divisions described above, and additionally, radio channel
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007