Appeal 2007-1481
Application 09/915,091
said band selection controller operable for selecting a
bandwidth of the at least one of the available frequency bands; and
said band selection controller further operable for selecting the
at least one frequency band for the desired wireless communication if
the at least one frequency band is determined to be acceptable.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
West 5,574,979 Nov. 12, 1996
Van De Berg 5,907,812 May 25, 1999
Souissi 6,327,300 Dec. 04, 2001
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8-10, 12-16, 18-20, 22, 24-26, 29, 30 and 32 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Van De Berg.
Claims 2, 6, 7, 21, 23, 27 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Van De Berg in view of “well known prior art” (Answer
11:11-13). Claims 11 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Van De Berg in view of West. Claim 17 stands rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Van De Berg in view of
Souissi.
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in stating that Van De
Berg anticipated claims 1, 13 and 22, because Van De Berg does not teach
combining the interference information of the frequency bands to produce a
signal quality indication, nor selecting a bandwidth of at least one of the
available frequency bands. The Examiner contends that Van De Berg may
fairly be read to meet each limitation of the claims.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013