Appeal No. 2003-0289
Application No. 09/234,702 Page 5
evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the
evidence as a whole. See id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039,
228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
The examiner's position (answer, page 3-4) is that
Chennakeshu clearly discloses a satellite diversity scheme in
which a mobile unit (user terminal), in communication with at
least two satellites, interrupts communication with one of said
satellites with the highest attenuation to then establish a
communication link with a third satellite. Relying on Fig. 4 and
col. 5, lines 3-20, the examiner states the mobile unit then
assess information related to synchronization and signal quality
of said third satellite.
The examiner notes that Chennakeshu does not specifically
disclose that one or more radio paths include “one or more earth
stations” to select which radio path used by the mobile unit to
interrupt (answer, page 4). To overcome this deficiency in
Chennakeshu, the examiner turns to Sherman (Fig. 1 and col. 5,
lines 20-29)2 for a teaching of communication link optimization
2
2Examiner incorrectly refers to Fig. 4 (answer, page 4) whereas Fig. 1
coincides with description in the answer.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007