Appeal No. 2004-1561
Application No. 09/631,474
shared communications link 60, the frame data comprises
32 timeslots. Nothing in Figure 9 or the disclosure of Ishii
indicates a break in the consecutive timeslots. Thereafter, the
downlink message is processed by the designated base
station/cascaded unit (column 13, lines 4 through 17). The
timeslot teachings of Miya are merely cumulative to the teachings
of Ishii.
In view of the foregoing, the obviousness rejection of
claims 45, 51, 57, 69 through 73, 80 and 84 through 86 is
sustained.
The obviousness rejection of claims 74 through 76 is
sustained because appellant has not presented any patentability
arguments for these claims apart from independent claim
69 (brief, pages 23 and 24).
The obviousness rejection of claim 87 is sustained because
Ishii alters the control message at the designated base
station/cascaded unit by deleting the designated header before
forwarding it to the next base station/cascaded unit (column 13,
lines 4 through 17).
The obviousness rejection of claims 46, 47, 52 through 54,
58 through 64, 77 and 78 is reversed because the applied
references neither teach nor would have suggested to one of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007