Appeal 2007-1115
Application 10/150,145
references, and to the respective positions articulated by Appellants and the
Examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations
that follow.
35 U.S.C. § 102
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference. Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2
USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
With respect to independent claims 2 and 5, Appellants’ main
contention is that Czaja does not teach configuring the second base station to
a lower protocol data unit format revision and reconfiguring the second base
station back to the higher protocol data unit format revision (Reply Br. 2-3).
The Examiner maintains that Czaja teaches the configuring and
reconfiguring the second base station because the IS-2000 standard (3G) is
backwards compatible with the IS-95 standard (2G). We agree with
Appellants because Czaja teaches the use of back compatibility from the
3G(IS-2000) network to the 2G(IS-95-A/B) network, but only discusses it
with respect to the mobile unit. Czaja teaches that the mobile unit receives
both the 2G and the 3G signals using a rake transceiver which uses at least a
finger to receive signals from each generation station. (Czaja, cols. 3-4).
The mobile unit then performs the soft handoff between each of the two
generations base stations without the base stations having to be modified.
While Czaja does discuss that the base stations may be either 2G or
3G, Czaja does not discuss how the 3G base station would use its backwards
compatibility. The Examiner cites to limited portions of Czaja in the
rejection. We have reviewed those cited portions of Czaja and do not find
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013