Appeal 2007-0843
Application 09/725,393
We further agree with the Examiner that Tiedemann teaches and/or
suggests the argued limitations of: “wherein the first data transmission rate is
different from and based on a data rate for transmitting the first encoder
subpacket indicated in a first rate indication message from a receiver” (claim
1). As pointed out by the Examiner, we note that Tiedemann teaches the
receiver (i.e., remote station 6) transmits a maximum supportable
transmission rate to the transmitter (i.e., cell) (col. 11, ll. 44-52). We find
this portion of Tiedemann teaches the instant claimed “first rate indication
message from a receiver” where Tiedemann’s “remote station 6”
corresponds to the claimed receiver (see Tiedemann, col. 11, ll. 44-45).
As also pointed out by the Examiner, we note that Tiedemann teaches
the assigned “Scheduled Rate” is based on three factors: e.g., “Assign the
Scheduled Rate Based on the Max Transmission Rate, Preferred Rate, and/or
Requested Rate (from Remote Station)” See Tiedemann, Fig. 8, step 224,
also see col. 12, ll. 1-3. Therefore, we find the breadth of Tiedemann’s
disclosure teaches and/or suggests an embodiment where the actual first data
transmission rate 3 is different from and based on a date rate for transmitting
… indicated in a first rate indication message from a receiver, where the
recited “first rate indication message from a receiver” corresponds to
Tiedemann’s “Requested Rate” (claim 1, see also Answer 8-9, see also
footnote 1 supra).
Motivation
We do not agree with Appellants’ assertion that the Examiner has
impermissibly used hindsight in formulating the rejection. We note that
3 See Tiedemann’s “Scheduled Rate,” Fig. 8, step 224, col. 12, ll. 1-3.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013