Appeal No. 2003-0705
Application No. 09/144,024
are bound by those definitions. While the references need not employ the same terms,
in haec verba, there must be some teaching or suggestion of a mode of operations
where the second radio-communication device can receive both low and high power
signals from the first radio-communication device, and can communicate with the first
radio-communication device along a return low-power channel, and there must be some
teaching or suggestion of a mode of operations where the second radio-communication
device can receive only the high power signals, and cannot communicate with the first
radio-communication device along a return low-power channel.
It is our view that the examiner has reasonably identified these defined
“disadvantaged” and “advantaged” modes of operation in Helferich in identifying that
when there is good, two-way communication between the devices, that is the
“advantaged” mode, and when there is some obstruction, so that there is only one-way
communication (i.e., the second device cannot respond to the first), this is the
“disadvantaged” mode.
Appellants contend that the disadvantaged and advantaged modes relate to
whether or not two-way communication is even possible (principal brief-page 7) and
that the disadvantaged mode is one wherein only a one-way communication link is
possible, the advantaged mode being one wherein two-way communication is possible.
With appellants’ own definitions in mind, clearly, when both devices are operating and
communicating with each other, there is two-way communication and this equates to an
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007