Appeal No. 95-2552
Application 07/886,228
Ellipso II. The Ellipso I . . . proposed a system of six satellites rotating about the earth in an elliptical
orbit. The application referred to the use of IF's 'eyesat' satellite." (Slip op. at 4.) The details of the
dispute are not relevant. However, the fact that the partnership was formed to construct a satellite
system, which was described in the FCC application in terms of a constellation of satellites in a particular
orbit, tends to show that a satellite system is a tangible manufacture.
For the reason stated above, the § 101 rejection of claims 1-7, 15-18, 20-25, and 27-31 is
reversed.
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
Appellant responds that the pertinent portion of claim 15 "clearly states that the 'longer stays'
obtained by the present invention are longer 'than would be possible with such elliptical orbits in which
the perigee and apogee are not offset from the extreme latitudes'" (Brief, page 14). Appellant explains
why this happens as follows (Brief, page 15):
Having the perigees and apogees offset from the extreme latitudes (that is having a
perigee angle different from 90E as in existing satellite systems), results in the satellite altitude
being higher and its velocity lower relative to the Earth near the preferred latitude. This
produces both higher elevation angles and longer times of visibility of the satellites from Earth
stations, as compared to the case of satellites and orbits where the perigee angle is nearly 90E,
in which case the apogee is not offset from the extreme latitude.
The phrase "obtain longer stays . . . than would be possible with such elliptical orbits in which the
perigee and apogee are not offset from the extreme latitudes" clearly defines that the relative length of
stay is longer when the perigee and apogee are offset from the extreme latitudes than when they are not.
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007