Appeal No. 2006-1221
Application No. 09/846,995
such normal [low-power] paging channel 20, such as reorienting antenna 32 into a favorable
position or moving mobile satellite phone 16 adjacent the window of a building” [col. 7,
lines 52-65]. Because Maveddat is also concerned with alerting the user of some type of
link margin problem (e.g., sun transit outages, Maveddat, col. 3, lines 8-10), we agree with
the examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would find adequate motivation to combine
the references in the manner suggested by the examiner.
V. Appellants argue that Maveddat and Rydbeck are non-analogous references [brief,
page 6, reply brief, page 5].
The examiner responds that Maveddat and Rydbeck are directed to analogous
systems because Maveddat uses a message to inform the user that there is an impending
condition that will cause reduced performance and Rydbeck is directed to an indicator that
informs the user when they are in “shadowed” areas where signal strength will be low
[answer, page 10].
Whether a reference in the prior art is "analogous" is a question of fact. In re Clay,
966 F.2d 656, 658-9, 23 USPQ2d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing Panduit Corp. v. Dennison
Mfg., 810 F.2d 1561, 1568 n.9, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 n.9 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 481 U.S.
1052 (1987). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has set forth two criteria for
determining whether prior art is analogous: (1) whether the art is from the same field of
endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field
of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular
problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d
-10-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007