Appeal 2007-0036
Application 10/699,452
Examiner” (Br. 13: 14-15). Taking these assertions as an argument that
Ament and Bender constitute nonanalogous prior art, we find the argument
unpersuasive. Ament is directed to controlling service engagements for data
bus users, in order to control a large number of services and large volumes
of data (para. [0003]); Bender is directed to rapidly assigning traffic
channels to a plurality of mobile stations in a wide area high-speed packet
data cellular communication system (Abstract, lines 1-3). Appellants’
invention is directed to wireless (“cellular”) data communication, and
Appellants recognize that access delays for such communication are
undesirable (Specification 3: 24-29). It is clear that (at minimum) both
Ament and Bender are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which
Appellants are involved, i.e. the transmission of large amounts of data at
high rates and in a highly efficient manner, without undue delay.
With regard to claims 3 and 12, the Examiner concedes that Ament
does not teach a delay length comprising a time interval between a first
instant corresponding with a received autonomous service request generated
at a predefined moment in time, and a second instant corresponding with
granting service access. Buford teaches sending access requests, with a
given time between attempts (col. 17, ll. 64-65), and suggests that doing so
helps measure the signal from a subscriber unit (col. 18, ll. 3-5) and improve
the location estimate of a subscriber unit (col. 17, ll. 45-47). The access
requests of Buford are generated at a “predefined” moment in time, within
the common meaning of the term “predefined,” in that the phrase “given
time between attempts” means that the time of the succeeding attempt is
“predefined” once the preceding attempt has occurred. Appellants’ argument
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013