Appeal No. 2007-0329
Application No. 08/498,749
As the Briefs and Answer indicate, this application was subject to a
decision in a prior appeal, Appeal No. 1999-0364, mailed on March 13,
2001 of which a decision on a Request for Rehearing was mailed on August
3, 2001. We incorporate by reference into this opinion the reasoning of
these prior Decisions.
It is noted that present representative independent claim 22 on appeal
is identical in subject matter through the bulk of the entire subject matter set
forth in representative independent claim 7 in the prior Decision. Additional
language of an uplink frame has been added in the last two lines of claim 22
on appeal. Because Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art Figures 1 and 2 clearly
identify an uplink frame TR sent from a base transceiver forwarded to a
transcoder rate adaptation unit 1 in Figure 1 in a cellular mobile radio
network, the additional language added at the end of claim 22 on appeal was
also known in the art.
Of particular interest here is the reasoning advanced at page 4 of the
prior Decision indicating that the correspondence of the argued limitation of
a “subfield substantially at the start of said information area.” This language
appears twice in independent claim 22 on appeal. Page 4 of the prior
Decision makes reference to prior art Figure 2 noting that subfield C12 is
substantially at the start of Appellants’ information area, defined at page 3,
lines 13 through 16 of the Specification as consisting of fields CC1, CD, and
CC2 comprising bytes 3 through 40. Therefore, it appears that subject
matter of representative independent claim 22 on appeal does not read over,
but in fact reads on, Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art.
Additionally, the Examiner has conducted a very detailed correlation
of the subject matter of the independent claims on appeal beginning at page
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013