Appeal No. 2006-2195 Page 5
Application No. 09/773,255
169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-51 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (internal
citations omitted). To anticipate, every element and limitation of the
claimed invention must be found in a single prior art reference, arranged as
in the claim. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376,
1383, 58 USPQ2d 1286, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Scripps Clinic & Research
Foundation v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001,
1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that
the claim at issue “reads on” a prior art reference. Atlas Powder Co. v.
Ireco, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1945 (Fed Cir. 1999)
citing Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 781, 227 USPQ 773,
778 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Appellants acknowledge that Dent teaches coordinating the
transmission of cellular signals during allocated time slots using well known
“re-use partitioning” techniques wherein the power signals are
predetermined and scheduled to be transmitted at known times [brief, page
6]. Appellants argue that Dent does not teach nor suggest transmitting or
receiving a report of an expected time of high and/or low interference
communications from an adjacent base station [brief, page 7; reply brief,
page 4].
The examiner disagrees and points to multiple portions of the Dent
reference relied upon in the rejection [answer, page 10]. Specifically, the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007