Appeal No. 2006-1221
Application No. 09/846,995
1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1445-6 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212
(Fed. Cir. 2004), and In re Clay, supra, at 1060, citing In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442,
230 USPQ 313, 315 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Maveddat teaches a communication system and method for notification and call
routing in a mobile satellite network [see e.g., summary of the invention, col. 3]. Rydbeck
teaches an apparatus and method for transmitting and receiving a signaling message in a
communication system that includes, in one embodiment, a satellite phone 18 and a mobile
satellite phone 17 [see fig. 1, also col. 5, line 24]. We find that Maveddat and Rydbeck are
from the same field of endeavor, specifically, the satellite telephony art, even though each
reference is directed to solving a different problem in the context of a particular mobile
satellite telephone system. Accordingly, we agree with the examiner that the references are
analogous and therefore combinable in the manner set forth by the examiner.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we will sustain the examiner’s rejections of
claims 1, 10, and 19.
GROUP II, claims 2-6, 8-9, 11-15, 17, 18, 20-24, 26-31
We now consider the examiner’s rejection of claims 2-6, 8-9, 11-15, 17, 18, 20-24,
26-31 that stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings
of Maveddat in view of Rydbeck, and further in view of Arrington and Redden.
The examiner acknowledges that Maveddat and Rydbeck do not specifically disclose
a several coverage satellite system where the link margin is based upon diversity
-11-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007