Appeal 2007-1280
Application 10/894,950
unpatentability of independent claims 1, 9, 21, and 22. We therefore
approach the following discussion from the perspective of the Examiner
having relied upon common art.
Although we would tend to generally agree with the Examiner’s views
expressed at pages 3 and 4 of the Answer as to what comprises a network in
Lenormand further in view of the extensive responsive arguments on this
issue in the Answer at pages 9 through 14, Appellants’ arguments beginning
at page 7 of the principal Brief on appeal argue instead not what comprises a
group of satellites forming a network but what is not in the network, that is,
the gateway satellite as claimed. What is significant as well is the
Appellants’ admission at the top of page 2 of the Reply Brief that a network
is not limited to the context of a collection of satellites over a specific
landmass but rather it is a network of satellites that intercommunicate and
provide routing therebetween. Appellants also indicate that the network may
be changing over time. Again, this portion of the Reply Brief emphasizes
the difference between network and non-network satellites. With respect to
this discussion of what is not in a network, Appellants merely recite that the
gateway satellite, as argued in the principal Brief beginning at page 7 as to
each of the independent claims 1, 9, 21, and 22 on appeal, comprises “a
gateway satellite disposed adjacent to and not part of the network.”
Even though Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s views of what
a network comprises in view of Lenormand’s teachings, it appears to us that
in addition to the discussion of figures 4 through 6 for an explanation of
what may comprise the claimed network as the Examiner has done, it is
more simply understood by viewing the various predetermined
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013