Appeal No. 2004-1613
Application No. 09/686,024
0050). Criss merely discloses that a request is sent from the
host to the mobile terminal in order to update its (paragraph
0051) which neither allows any mobile terminal with anything less
than the most recent protocol revision, nor provides any
communication services to the mobile terminals subject to a
constrained protocol.
Based on our findings above, we agree with Appellants that
by merely sending software upgrades or assigning mobile stations
to rotating access-restricted groups, the combination of the
applied prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed
constrained protocol and communicating messages subject to such
constrained protocol, as recited in independent claims 1 and 7.
Accordingly, as the Examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 1, 3, 7, 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Müller and
Criss.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007