Reexamination Control No. 90/005,742
Patent 5,253,341
1 '341 patent, col. 1, ll. 21-31 (emphasis added). We note that “mobile” embraces but does not
2 require a wireless connection.
3 Kirchner discloses wireless modems for providing communication between computers,
4 terminals, and other peripheral computer equipment, such as printers and memory units.
5 Kirchner, col. 1, ll. 5-8. The examiner cites Kirchner as teaching "replacing of the telephone
6 modem with a wireless modem and the resulting advantages gained (col. 1, lines 15-40)."
7 3d Action at 107, para. 47; Final Action at 259, para. 46. These advantages include "permit[ting]
8 part or all of the computer equipment to be portable" and "facilitat[ing] physical rearrangement
9 and substitution of equipment." Kirchner, col. 1, ll. 29-30 and 35-36. Kirchner equates
10 portability with mobility by describing his wireless modem as "provid[ing] communications
11 mobility for portable usage within an office or plant environment," Kirchner, col. 2, ll. 10-14
12 (emphasis added), which is consistent with our understanding of the term "mobile" in appellant's
13 claim 103. Dr. Koopman's testimony that Kirchner does not teach "mobile use" or "mobility,"
14 2d Koopman Decl. at 197, para. 434, is unconvincing because it fails to address the foregoing
15 passage in Kirchner.
16 Dr. Koopman's testimony that appellant's '341 patent employs more than one thousand
17 times the bandwidth available on a per-station basis than does Kirchner, 2d Koopman Decl.
18 at 197, para. 435, also misses the mark in several respects. First, Kirchner is not being relied on
19 for operational details. Second, the question raised by the rejection is whether it would have
20 been obvious to combine the teachings of Walter and Kirchner in a manner which satisfies the
- 68 -
Page: Previous 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007