Appeal No. 2003-0660
Application No. 09/791,259
frame (col. 6, lines 7-15).
We disagree with the Examiner that the coarse and fine
synchronization between the spacecraft and the data terminals
indicates that both the data terminals and the spacecraft
synchronize their timing. Although each data terminal in
Schlosser is synchronized to uplink transmission from other
terminals, as also indicated by Appellants’ representative (oral
hearing), the data terminals synchronize themselves to the
spacecraft based on a time reference from the repeater (col. 6,
lines 9-15). Thus, the spacecraft repeater of Schlosser is not
synchronized to any of the data terminals and merely acts as a
reference or base station to which the data terminals or
subscribers are synchronized. Accordingly, we find that the
Examiner has failed to meet the burden of providing a prima facie
case of anticipation. Thus, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. §
102 rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-13 over Schlosser.
The Examiner further relies on the requirement of identical
implementation of the transceiver units in order to communicate
to modify Schlosser for rejecting claims 6 and 14. Although it
may be obvious to use transceivers having identical
implementations in the spacecraft repeater of Schlosser, the
deficiencies of Schlosser as discussed above with respect to
independent base claims 1 and 11 cannot be overcome.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007