Appeal No. 2006-0663 Page 7
Application No. 09/841,862
We also make the observation, from our own independent
review of the disclosure of Roccanova, that, as also alluded to
by the Examiner (Answer, pages 11 and 12), Roccanova discloses a
user terminal 12, a bidirectional gateway 14 coupled to a data
communications network, and a controller (modulator 36) in the
user terminal which makes a selection of quality service modes.
In addition, the system of Roccanova establishes communications
with at least one satellite (16, 18) in earth orbit.
In view of the above discussion and analysis of the
disclosure of the Roccanova reference, it is our opinion that,
although we found no error in the Examiner’s proposed combination
of Forslow and Roccanova as discussed supra, the Forslow
reference is not necessary for a proper rejection of at least
claims 1 and 14 since all of the claimed elements are in fact
present in the disclosure of Roccanova. A disclosure that
anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102 also renders the claim
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for "anticipation is the
epitome of obviousness." Jones v. Hardy, 727 F.2d 1524, 1529,
220 USPQ 1021, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See also In re Fracalossi,
681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982); In re Pearson,
494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974).
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of dependent claims 2-5 and 15-18 based on the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007