Appeal No. 2003-0289
Application No. 09/234,702 Page 7
(brief, page 5). In contradiction to the examiner’s assertion,
appellant states that claims 1 and 8 do not require earth
stations to select which radio paths to interrupt (brief, page
6). Appellant further states that the claims require the user
terminal to independently interrupt a radio path between said
user terminal and one of at least two satellites without the
assistance of any other software/hardware (i.e. earth station).
Appellant concludes by stating (brief, page 7) that “Sherman et
al. describes ground station software for providing traffic
control for allocating traffic to satellites using gateways,” and
that neither modeling software nor the processor required could
reasonably fit in a commercial “user terminal,” which are
typically handheld units. The examiner responds (answer, page 8)
that the use of earth stations to select which radio path to
interrupt is in claims 3 and 10.
We note at the outset that the examiner’s assertions that
limitations regarding earth stations selecting which radio path
to interrupt are present in claims 3 and 10 does not address the
limitations of independent claims 1 and 8. A review of
Chennakeshu reveals that the reference relates to a diversity
scheme in a “satellite mobile communication method and system in
which a mobile unit can selectively exchange signals with
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007