Appeal No. 2003-0705
Application No. 09/144,024
Appellants argue that the examiner has provided an insufficient motivation for
combining the references and that the references do not disclose the “advantage” and
“disadvantage” modes, as claimed, and as defined in the instant specification.
First, with regard to the question of motivation to combine, the examiner clearly
has provided a motivation to combine, at page 8 of the answer, wherein the examiner
explains that Thompson uses a satellite communication network and that it is well
known that satellite communication networks are utilized to provide a communication
link in rural areas where land line communication links are not available or possible.
The examiner explains, further, that since both references deal with wireless
communications networks, it would have been obvious to apply Thompson’s satellite
communications network to Helferich’s system so that a mobile device can be reached
in rural areas where land line communication links are not available.
The examiner presents a reasonable case for leading skilled artisans to combine
the references. Yet, appellants do not respond to this explanation. Accordingly, we
find sufficient motivation to combine the references.
At pages 3-4 of the specification, appellants state that the “advantaged” mode of
operations “occurs where the second radio-communication device can receive both low
and high power signals from the first radio-communication device, and can
communicate with the first radio-communication device along a return low-power
channel.” The “disadvantaged” mode of operations “occurs where the second radio-
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007