Appeal 2007-1267
Application 09-967617
ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claims 1-4 and 18-20 over Sklar
Appellants contend that Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 to 4 and
18 to 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Reviewing the Findings of Facts cited
above and the documents of record, we find that the Examiner has properly
made a prima facie case for the anticipation of the noted claims by Sklar.
(See In re Rouffet cited above.) In challenge to that case, Appellants raise a
number of issues. First, Appellants contend that Sklar contains no teaching
of a plurality of dynamic links (Br. 7), and that “changing from one beam to
another does not make the beams themselves dynamic.” In considering this
argument, we notice that the claim language is addressed to the “dynamic
links corresponding …” not the argued “dynamic beams”. Considering the
definition of dynamic links taken from the Specification itself (see Finding
of Fact #3 above) we note that the links in Sklar are indeed “subject to
change as the users and infrastructure move in relation to each other”.
Certainly the airplane in Sklar is moving with respect to the two gateway
sources #12 and #18. (Sklar, Figure 1). Appellants further argue that the
TV broadcast beam in Sklar is not divided using multiple datagrams through
a plurality of dynamic links. We find that datagrams, as understood by
general meaning and by usage in the Specification, can include as few as a
single packet in a digital signal. (FF. 2). Clearly Sklar teaches the gateway
station generating a plurality of datagrams. (Sklar, Col.1, ll. 38).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013