Appeal No. 2005-1637
Application No. 09/749,713
relative to the longer rest period enables the transmission of
information to the second of the two dissimilar transmission
assemblies during the rest periods.
Claim 6 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
6. An information transmission system, comprising:
at least two dissimilar transmission assemblies; and
a telecommunications device operable in accordance with a
fixed time division multiple access to exchange information pulses
with the at least two dissimilar transmission assemblies.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Bell 6,445,921 Sep. 03, 2002
(filed Dec. 20, 1999)
Claims 6-19, all of the appealed claims, stand finally
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Bell.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs1 and Answer for the
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejection advanced by the Examiner, and the evidence of
anticipation relied upon by the Examiner as support for the
1 The Appeal Brief was filed November 24, 2004. In response to the
Examiner’s Answer mailed March 14, 2005, a Reply Brief was filed May 16, 2005,
which was acknowledged and entered by the Examiner as indicated in the
communication dated June 3, 2005.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007