Appeal No. 2003-2027
Application No. 08/804,908
line 44 through column 4, line 65. Upon our complete review of
Hendricks, we fail to find any teachings directed to a method for
analyzing a bi-directional communication path or sending an error
message in the forward direction if no response message is
received on the return frequency and said power level is greater
than the threshold value as recited in Appellants' claims 1 and
6. Furthermore, we fail to find any teaching of means for
monitoring said forward frequency for an error message including
frequency spectrum, and means for displaying said frequency
spectrum as recited in Appellants' claim 11. Therefore, we will
not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 6 and 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection of claims 2-5, 7-10 and 12 over
Hendricks in view of Chappell
Appellants argue that Chappell does not provide the
teachings missing from Hendricks as pointed out above.
Appellants argue that there is no teaching of an error message
being sent to remote units in response to the head end unit not
finding a response to a sign-on or login message. See page 9 of
the brief. Appellants further argue that Chappell does not teach
means for monitoring said forward frequency for an error message
88
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007