Appeal 2007-1415
Application 09/795,704
terminal capable of communicating in both packet and circuit switched
modes is, at the very least, desirable. Given the capability of Mazur’s dual-
mode wireless device, we find this teaching readily combinable with the
multi-network wireless device of Rydbeck.5
Furthermore, even if we assume, without deciding, that Mazur’s dual-
mode terminal in Figure 8 is not a “mobile station,” we find the teachings of
Mazur nonetheless readily applicable to a wide variety of mobile stations
that are capable of wireless communication, including cellular telephones.
On this record, we see no reason why integrating packet and circuit switched
modes as taught by Mazur would not be applicable to mobile stations as well
as fixed stations. In any event, Mazur expressly discusses cellular
communications systems as the Examiner indicates.6
For at least these reasons, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1. Since Appellants have not separately argued the
patentability of dependent claims 4 and 7, these claims fall with independent
claim 1. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528
(Fed. Cir. 1987); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Likewise, we will sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 10, 20, 33, and 34 for similar reasons. Although Appellants argue the
claims separately, Appellants essentially reiterate the arguments made with
respect to the alleged deficiencies of Rydbeck and Mazur in connection with
claim 1 (Br. 6-10). Appellants have simply not persuasively rebutted the
Examiner’s findings regarding Rydbeck and Mazur, including the
5 We further note that Mazur’s dual-mode terminal in Figure 8 has an
antenna mounted on top of the structure similar to that shown in Figure 1 of
Rydbeck.
6 See, e.g., Mazur, col. 1, ll. 5-8; see also col. 10, l. 2 (preamble of claim 1).
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013