Appeal No. 2003-0705
Application No. 09/144,024
“advantaged” mode, as defined, and argued, by appellants. When there is an
obstruction in Helferich and the second device cannot respond, there is, arguably, only
one-way communication, meeting appellants’ argued definition. Accordingly, we agree
with the examiner that Helferich suggests, though it does not recite the exact terms of,
“advantaged” and “disadvantaged” modes of operation.
Appellants’ argument, at page 7 of the principal brief, that Helferich is related
primarily to saving battery power and memory space, is irrelevant if, as we find, the
reference discloses (together with Thompson) the subject matter, as claimed. Contrary
to appellants’ position, the definitions of “advantaged” and “disadvantaged” modes of
operation do not run contrary to the teaching of Helferich. Moreover, the instant claims
do not preclude saving battery power and memory space.
Appellants argue, further, that the claims go beyond simply citing and defining
two modes, in that they also recite that the call type indication is sent and received
when the mobile unit is in the disadvantaged mode, but the call in question is to take
place while the mobile unit is operating in the advantaged mode.
Helferich clearly discloses such a call type indication. At column 2, Helferich
explains that there are times when a paging transceiver cannot issue a reply to a base
station that has sent a message (this is appellants’ “disadvantaged” mode since there is
only one-way communication). Helferich also suggests, throughout column 3, that the
page transceiver may give the user an indication that a message has been received, as
well as the type of message (column 3, lines 18-20) and the user can then decide
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007