Appeal No. 95-4207
Application 08/073,442
does not evidence interference therebetween.” There is no
apparent discussion in Noreen of any interference between any
user terminal 107, 109 and any plurality of satellites 105.
As such there is no discussion of any need to synchronize
anything with respect to edges of reception of any beams
broadcast from these satellites 105 to
the respective mobile user terminals 107, 109 to prohibit
interference therebetween.
As to independent claim 10 we note that there is no
recitation of spread spectrum modulation in the initial clause
of the body of this claim. However, there is a recitation of
satellite timing means to perform the synchronization function
as set forth in the last clause of independent claims 1 and 11
on appeal as just discussed. There is no disclosed satellite
timing means to perform this function in Noreen. We reach
this conclusion even though we are well aware of the use of
the GPS satellite system in various locations in Noreen, which
is the same disclosed basis for the recitation of a satellite
timing means in independent claim 10 on appeal. While
appellants use the GPS satellite system for timing and
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007