Appeal No. 2005-1637
Application No. 09/749,713
illustrations in Figure 1 of Bell along with the accompanying
description at column 2, lines 33-44 of Bell.
Appellant’s arguments in response assert a failure of Bell to
disclose every limitation in independent claims 6, 11, and 15 as is
required to support a rejection based on anticipation. Appellant’s
assertions focus on the contention that, in contrast to the claimed
invention, Bell does not disclose a telecommunications device which
exchanges information with at least two dissimilar transmission
assemblies and operates in accordance with a fixed time division
multiple access (TDMA) system. According to Appellant (Brief,
pages 12 and 13; Reply Brief, pages 11 and 12), the Bell reference,
while admittedly disclosing information exchange between a
telecommunications device 110 and a cellular network 130, i.e., a
first transmission assembly, utilizing a TDMA scheme, has no
disclosure of an information exchange between telecommunications
device 110 and cordless base station 150, i.e., a second dissimilar
transmission assembly, utilizing such a TDMA system as claimed.
After reviewing the Bell reference in light of the arguments
of record, we are in general agreement with Appellant’s position as
expressed in the Briefs. Although the Examiner directs attention
(Answer, page 5) to the portion of Bell (column 2, lines 42-44)
which states “[i]t is understood ... that the handset 110 and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007