ssues do affects mobile users and can be moderated and handled.And so, the first task for an engineer to do is to determine whether the device in Part II can be built withinthe general size of the Kyrocera format, a manageable cost, in reasonable time AND be as adaptively as indicated. This means that a person buying a device in a covered area can get some use of the devicein an uncovered area and then smoothly switch back to the other ‘big pipe’ mode when the person goes tothe covered area. If this device can be built to these criteria, it becomes a marketing issue whether it should be built. In either case, analysis can proceed without knowing the answer to this engineering andsubsequent marketing question. This means an expanded number of units as well making cost a factorearly. One needs a unit to operate one’s house as well as a mobile unit that exchange for eachother.However, the first prototype need not be this very flexible and powerful device. The proof of concept goesto what has been called loosely ‘Party-Line’ and that is what needs to be demonstrated and described in more detail below in Section A.Thus,Patent Table 1.0ItemTitle Description1T-Wap Basic(3G+)Unit that should be first prototype ‘Party-Line’2T-Wap Max(2G+3G+) Unit that engineering should evaluate for viability3 Party-LineCommunications system which support group action See Section A. Party-Line DescriptionSection A. Party-Line DescriptionGeneral: From a purely telephony point of view a Party-Line is understood. It is a configurationwhere one of a number of subscribers can make a call outside the group and yet all on the party-linemight listen in and talk. In the past, rural communities used such a configuration to moderate cost.‘Party-Line’ as used here is a continuing session for communication and augmented by the text ofthe conversation to that moment. From a website ...
