Appeal No. 1999-1516
Application 08/263,835
separate LEO satellites in this figure only communicate with the geosatellite and not with
any ground station or ground terminal.
A careful reading of the wherein clause of claim 16 requires first that the
geostationary satellite and the satellite in non-geostationary orbit both communicate
individually to the claimed subscriber terminals, in addition to the special conditions
recited therein that the geostationary satellite provides radio communication service to at
least one of the subscriber terminals during a period that the subscriber terminal cannot
access via at least one non-geostationary orbit satellite. These conditions cannot be met
according to the teachings and showings and suggestions provided by the communication
of Rouffet and Grant as proposed by the examiner.
As appellant observes at page 5 of the brief "[m]erely because Grant shows
satellites orbiting at two different altitudes, the deficiencies of Rouffet are not remedied."
We also are in agreement with appellant’s observations at page 6 of the brief that "neither
Grant nor Rouffet suggest handing off communications to a satellite that is in a higher orbit.
Instead, Rouffet hands off only to a satellite orbiting at the same altitude and, .... Grant
relates inter-satellite communication wherein the concept of handoff, as it applies to
selecting an appropriate server for subscriber terminals, has no meaningful application."
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007