Appeal No. 2003-0705
Application No. 09/144,024
claims 13 and 30 add limitations related to the Asis Cellular Satellite standard and claim
31 adds a qualifier that the call type indication is at least 3 bits in length.
Appellants do not present any substantive argument regarding these limitations,
preferring, instead, to merely recite the claim limitations and argue that they are not
“design choice,” as alleged by the examiner. Since the examiner has indicated,
reasonably, that the artisan would have found the number of bits and the particular
standard to have been obvious design choices and appellants have offered nothing to
counteract this allegation, as in showing some criticality to the use of only these bit
numbers and standard, we will sustain the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C.
§103.
With regard to claims 36-43, appellants, again, argue motivation to combine and
no suggestion of the advantaged and disadvantaged modes. Since we have already
discussed Helferich’s advantaged and disadvantaged modes, supra, we do not find
these arguments persuasive. With regard to the combinability, we are satisfied with the
examiner’s explanation, at page 11 of the answer, as to why the artisan would have
combined the references (“both disclose a message type or call type is included as part
of a paging signal...).
The specifics of claims 37-42, discussed by appellants at pages 9-10 of the
principal brief, have been treated supra with regard to similar claims and the rejections
of these claims under 35 U.S.C. §103 is sustained for the same reasons.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007