Appeal No. 2006-0663 Page 6
Application No. 09/841,862
We further find to be without merit Appellants’ argument
(Brief, pages 7 and 8; Reply Brief, pages 5 and 6) that the
Examiner has not established proper motivation for the proposed
combination of Forslow and Roccanova. Initially, we would point
out that, contrary to Appellants’ contention, Roccanova is
clearly involved with a mobile system as discussed, for example,
at column 3, lines 6-11. Further we find ample motivation, for
all of the reasons articulated by the Examiner (Answer, pages 3,
4, 10, and 11), for the combination of Roccanova with Forslow.
In our view, the ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized
and appreciated that the system of Roccanova, which employs
quality of service determinations in a mobile satellite
communications environment, would serve as an obvious enhancement
to the system of Forslow, especially in view of the fact that
Forslow contemplates (column 8, lines 58-63) implementation of
the disclosed invention “in any mobile communications system
using other mobile data communications architectures and/or
protocols.”
For the above reasons, since it is our opinion that the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness has not been overcome
by any convincing arguments from Appellants, the Examiner’s 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1 and 14 is
sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007