Appeal 2007-1415
Application 09/795,704
Rydbeck fails to disclose a router and operating mode switch coupled to the
RF transceiver as claimed. Appellants further argue that Rydbeck does not
disclose an interoperability entity that is (1) coupled to the router and
operating mode switch, and (2) coupled with the packet and circuit stacks as
claimed. In this regard, Appellants contend that controller 160 in Rydbeck
is not an interoperability entity, but rather only (1) detects the presence of
modules 120, (2) identifies the protocol supported by each module, and (3)
connects via switch 150 one module to man-machine interface 105 (Br. 5;
Reply Br. 2).
The Examiner argues that because each communications module (i.e.,
protocol stack) in Rydbeck contains functionality to facilitate
communication between the mobile phone and a particular communication
network, the stacks must be coupled to the RF transceiver in order to
communicate at all (Answer 4). The Examiner adds that Rydbeck’s
controller 160 fully meets an “interoperability entity” as claimed since it
“interoperates with the different network protocols” by selecting different
protocols (Answer 5).
Appellants also argue that the secondary reference, Mazur, teaches
away from combining circuit and packet technologies. According to
Appellants, Mazur teaches implementing packet switched technology
without circuit switched technology. In particular, Appellants contend that
Mazur introduces synchronization and frequency correction in a stand alone
packet communications system without needing to implement a circuit
switched system and its associated control channels (Br. 5). Appellants also
argue that Mazur is concerned with network architecture -- not handset
architecture (Br. 5-6).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013