Appeal No. 2003-0705
Application No. 09/144,024
evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See Id.; In re
Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1040, 228 USPQ 685, 687 (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, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 146-147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments actually
made by appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments which appellant
could have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived [see 37 CFR 1.192 (a)].
With regard to the first rejection, involving Helferich and Thompson, the
examiner asserts that Helferich discloses the claimed limitations but for a satellite
communication system. The examiner then relies on Thompson for the teaching of a
mobile radio-communication device that communicates RF signals either from land
lines or satellite networks, finding that it would have been obvious to provide
Thompson’s teaching to Helferich.
With regard to the second rejection, involving Foladare and Helferich, the
examiner finds that Foladare discloses the claimed subject matter but for the
“disadvantage” mode. The examiner relies on Helferich’s disclosure of such a mode
when the device is in a subway or basement, finding that when a device is not working
because of an obstructed area, it is “inherently” operating in a “disadvantaged” mode.
The examiner finds that both the “advantage” and “disadvantage” mode “inherently”
occur depending on the location of the mobile device.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007