专利申请OA审查意见答复.pptVIP

* 思考 Claim 1中的第二步骤是否真的被D2公开？ 第一个念头：argue，因为第二步骤与D2所讲内容不相同。在我们的方案中， available channels are selected before unavailable channels，而D2中， unavailable channels will never be selected。 生活中的例子：NBA，我队有5 starters and 5 reserve，对比文件只有5 starters可用，是否一样？ US file history能否作为标准答案？ Bargain理论决定了客户在CN希望得到尽可能大且稳定的专利权，而不强求CN和US相同。 如果审查员引用更合适的对比文件，而发出OA2，再考虑并权2。 * Example 3 In this office action, claims 1, 4, 10, 12, 15, and 17 stand rejected for want of novelty as being anticipated by D1 (“Applying MSTDM to Packet and Data in Cellular Radio Systems”), and claims 2, 3, 5-9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 20, and 23 stand rejected for want of inventiveness as being rendered obvious over D1 in view of commonly used means in the art. * Claims 1 and 2 1. An apparatus for scheduling synchronous packet transmissions, comprising: a synchronous packet manager for scheduling synchronous packet transmissions; and a synchronous packet reservation table for storing slot reservations for the synchronous packet transmissions. 2. The apparatus in claim 1, wherein the synchronous packet manager further comprises a packet scheduler for scheduling asynchronous packet transmissions in response to the synchronous packet reservation table. * Comments As to the rejection of claim 1, the examiner considers the voice packet set forth in D1 as being equivalent to the synchronous packet set forth in claim 1. Our review of the present invention indicates that a synchronous packet is a multicast/broadcast packet, instead of a voice packet. According to common sense, the voice packet may be synchronous or asynchronous, and the synchronous packet may be any type of packet, including voice, data, video, etc. Thus, the voice packet set forth in D1 cannot be said to be equivalent to the synchronous packet set forth in the present invention. If the applicant wants to make an argument in this respect, it is better to amend claim 1 to reflect that a synchronous packet is a multicast/broadcast packet. In this way, the argument ca