Appeal No. 2003-0289
Application No. 09/234,702 Page 11
or other satellite, and Sherman does not disclose that the
terminal interrupts the radio path between the user terminal and
the satellite, we find no teaching or suggestion to combine the
teachings of Chennakeshu and Sherman.
Assuming, arguendo, that an artisan were to combine the
teachings of Chennakeshu and Sherman, the language of claims 1
and 8 would still not be met. Because Sherman discloses the use
of ground station software for providing traffic control, if the
teachings of Chennakeshu and Sherman were combined, the result
would be that the user terminal of Chennakeshu would be carrying
out the traffic control of Sherman. However, as asserted by
appellant (brief, page 7) the modeling software and processor
size required to execute the modeling software could not
reasonably fit in a portable user terminal. Thus, we find that
the combined teachings of Chennakeshu and Sherman would not have
suggested the language of independent claim 1, and similarly
recited in independent claim 8.
From all of the above, we find that the examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of independent
claims 1 and 8. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1 and 8,
and claims 2-4 and 9-11 dependent therefrom, is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007