Appeal 2007-1603
Application 10/036,356
transmit power "upon the occurrence of a significant change in the required
transmit power." (Br. 11). Appellants further argue the disclosed features as
recited in the Specification (Br. 11-12).
Appellants then compare various embodiments of Tiedemann, Jr. to
the claimed invention and conclude that each is "not the same thing" as
"changing the transmit power according to a corresponding change in the
required transmission quality target value" and "upon the occurrence of a
significant change in the required transmit power" as required by
independent claim 17 (Br. 12-15). For each of the comparisons of
Tiedemann, Jr. to the claimed invention, Appellants conclude that
embodiments of Tiedemann, Jr. are "not the same thing."
Appellants argue at page 14 of the Brief that in particular "setting the
power control bits" means working according to the known power control
techniques as explained, for example, at Appellants’ Specification at page 5
together with Figure 1, and as reiterated above, upon the occurrence of a
significant change in the required transmit power, has no drawbacks which
are avoided by the present claimed invention. i.e., by "changing the transmit
power according to a corresponding change in the required transmission
quality target value." Since we find no express limitation in independent
claim 17 as to setting the power control bits, we do not find this argument
commensurate in scope with Appellants’ claimed invention. Therefore, the
argument is not persuasive. We cannot agree with Appellants’ arguments
which rely upon distinction with the disclosed invention rather than the clear
language of independent claim 17 and dependent claims 18-21, 23-27, 29,
31, 32, 34, 37, 41, and 43-50 which have not been separately argued by
Appellants.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013