Appeal No. 2005-2541 Page 2
Application No. 08/949,988
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a method and system for maximizing satellite
constellation coverage at predetermined local times for a set of predetermined
geographic locations. A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to
the appellants’ brief.
The Applied Prior Art
Westerlund 4,776,540 Oct. 11, 1988
Draim 4,809,935 Mar. 7, 1989
The Rejection
Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Draim in view of Westerlund.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding this appeal, we make reference to the final rejection (mailed
September 5, 2001) and examiner's answer (mailed January 2, 2002) for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejection and to the appellants’ brief (filed
December 3, 2001) and reply brief (filed February 8, 2002) for the appellants’
arguments thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007