Appeal No. 2000-2253 Page 6
Application No. 08/798,137
Here, Wiedeman “permit[s] low-powered fixed or mobile user terminals 13 to
communicate via . . . satellites 12. . . .” Col. 4, ll. 19-20. “[T]he user terminals 13 may
be capable of operating in a full duplex mode and communicate via, by example,
L-band RF links (uplink or return link 17b) and S-band RF links (downlink or forward
link 17a) through return and forward satellite transponders 12a and 12b, respectively.”
Id. at ll. 57-62. The examiner fails to show, however, that the user terminals receive
communication signals from the satellites at different carrier bandwidths. To the
contrary, the reference teaches that the S-bank link, via which the user terminals
receive communication signals from the satellites, features a single, fixed bandwidth.
Specifically, “[t]he forward S band RF links 17a may operate within . . . a bandwidth of
16.5 MHZ.” Col. 4, l. 67 - col. 5, l. 1. The absence of such a showing negates
anticipation. Therefore, we reverse the anticipation rejection of claim 1 and claims 2, 5,
and 6, which fall therewith; of claim 8 and claims 9-11, which fall therewith; and of
claim 14 and claims 16 and 18, which fall therewith.
“In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. Section 103, the examiner bears the initial
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993)(citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). "’A prima facie case of obviousness is
established when the teachings from the prior art itself would appear to have suggested
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007