Appeal No. 2006-1221
Application No. 09/846,995
• GROUP I, claims 1, 10, and 19.
• GROUP II, claims 2-6, 8-9, 11-15, 17, 18, 20-24, and 26-31.
GROUP I, claims 1, 10, and 19
We consider first the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 10, and 19 that stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Maveddat in view of
Rydbeck. Since Appellants’ arguments with respect to this rejection have treated these
claims as a single group which stand or fall together, we will consider independent claim 1 as
the representative claim for this rejection.
The examiner relies upon Maveddat as teaching all the elements of the claimed
invention except the limitation of “activating an indicator.” For independent claims 1, 10,
and 19, the examiner relies upon Rydbeck as teaching “activating an indicator” that would
allow “the user to be notified of low link margin” [answer, page 3].
I. Appellants argue that nowhere in Maveddat is there suggested, taught or implied that
LEOs, MEOS or LEOS and MEOS in conjunction with GEOS may be employed in the
system of the instant invention which activates an indication for informing a user of potential
reduced user terminal performance [reply brief, page 3].
The reply brief was noted by the examiner. We note that the instant claims are silent
with respect to the argued limitations of LEOS (Low Earth Orbit Satellite), MEOS (Medium
Earth Orbit Satellite), or LEOS and MEOS in conjunction with GEOS (Geo-stationary Earth
Orbit Satellite).
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007