Appeal No. 2001-0906
Application No. 08/597,073
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will reverse the
obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 7, 9 through 12, 14, 16 through 19 and 21 through 29.
The examiner is of the opinion (answer, page 4) that Hutcheson ‘058 discloses all of the
claimed subject matter of claims 1 through 7, 11, 12, 16 through 19, 21 through 23 and 27 through
29 except for “estimating the position of the terminal using the relative powers and a model of spot
beam shape.” According to the examiner (answer, page 4), “Olds, et al teaches the use of
estimating the position of a terminal using a model of spot beam shape (column 14, lines 33-38) in a
method in a radio communication system using an array to illuminate areas with spot beams for the
purpose of evaluating other beams sufficiently qualified to have been selected to transmit to the
terminal.” Based upon the teachings of Olds, the examiner concluded (answer, pages 4 and 5) that
“it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was
made to incorporate the use of estimating the position of a terminal using a model of spot beam
shape, as taught by Olds, et al, in the method of estimating a position of a terminal in a radio
communication system of Hutcheson, et al, for the purpose of evaluating other beams sufficiently
qualified to have been selected to transmit to the terminal in order [to] determine an effective
received signal quality associated with other beams in relation to the terminal.”
Appellants argue (supplemental brief, page 5) that Hutcheson ‘058 does not disclose the last
two steps of claim 1. With respect to the step of “determining relative powers,” appellants argue
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007