Appeal No. 2006-0663 Page 9
Application No. 09/841,862
Examiner (Answer, pages 14 and 15) in support of the asserted
position with no evidence or argument, aside from a generalized
statement of disagreement (Reply Brief, pages 8 and 9) with the
Examiner’s position, forthcoming from Appellants.
We also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claims 6, 7, 19, and 20 in which the Wiedeman reference is
added to the combination of Forslow and Roccanova to address the
“satellite ephemeris information” feature of these claims. We
agree with the Examiner that the ordinarily skilled artisan would
have been motivated and found it obvious to utilize stored
satellite ephemeris information in the system of Forslow as
modified by the satellite communication disclosure of Roccanova
to establish an optimum path through a satellite constellation as
taught by Wiedeman. Although Appellants contend (Brief, 13;
Reply Brief, page 9) that Wiedeman does not disclose a satellite
path determination using ephemeris information as claimed, we
fail to see how any other conclusion can be drawn from the
disclosure of Wiedeman. For example, Wiedeman discloses (column
3, lines 12-26) that the linking, i.e., the communication path,
of satellites, the transceiver apparatus, i.e., the user
terminal, and the terrestrial communications link, i.e., the
gateway, is determined based on satellite ephemeris information.
In summary, we have sustained the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007