Appeal 2007-1826
Application 09/826,251
REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 1, 2, and 4 through 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Walley. The Examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 3
through 8 of the Answer.
Throughout the opinion we make reference to the Brief and Reply Brief
(filed September 6, 2006 and December 18, 2006 respectively), and the Answer
(mailed November 21, 2006) for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
Appellants argue, on page 11 of the Brief, that Walley does not teach two
separate networks as recited in the claims.
The Examiner responds on page 8 of the Answer, by finding that Walley
teaches bridging two networks in the embodiment of figure 10, described in
paragraph 65.
In the Reply Brief, on page 2, Appellants admit that Walley in the
embodiment of figure 10 teaches two networks and argue:
Nothing in this reference ever suggests enabling a device in one network to
be initialized into another network by communicating address information
about devices in the first network over a non-radio frequency network to the
second network. The communication suggested in Figure 10 by dotted line
1012, is a radio frequency connection. See paragraph 55. Thus, the cited
reference explicitly teaches away from the claimed invention and for this
further reason, reversal would be appropriate
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection. Representative claim 1 recites that there are two radio frequency
networks that communicate address information with each other via a non-radio
frequency network. The Examiner, relying on paragraphs 0035 and 0036 of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013