Appeal 2006-3074
Application 10/035,464
1396 (2007). Thus, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 3, 6,
and 7 over Nordenstam in view of Cory and Munger, with the teachings of
Cory being merely cumulative.1
Appellants contend (Br. 23) that the Munger fails to teach terminating
the generation of dummy messages in response to a bona fide transaction
occurring at the wireless terminal, as recited in claim 4. The second issue,
therefore, is whether generating dummy messages in response to a bona fide
transaction occurring at the wireless terminal would have been obvious in
view of Nordenstam, Cory, and Munger. However, since Munger discloses
sending bogus messages only during periods of low traffic from the wireless
terminal, it naturally follows that the transmission of bogus messages should
stop when actual transactions occur at the wireless terminal. Accordingly,
we will sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Appellants contend (Br. 24-25) that Munger
teaches generating bogus messages based on time or on the number of
messages received rather than on the bandwidth used. Further, Appellants
explain (Br. 25) that although “there may be a relationship between the
number of messages being received and the bandwidth used, the relationship
is not direct inasmuch as the data size of the messages varies. Thus, the
number of messages being received is not the same as the bandwidth being
used to transmit messages.” Claim 5 recites that bogus messages are
generated “in response to the computed dead space [in a communication
1 The Board may rely on fewer than all of the references applied by the
Examiner in an obviousness rationale without designating it as a new ground
of rejection. In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496, 131 USPQ 263, 266-67 (CCPA
1961); In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2 150 USPQ 441, 444 n.2 (CCPA
1966).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013