Appeal No. 2006-1221
Application No. 09/846,995
transmission [answer, page 5]. The examiner states that Arrington shows coverage by
several satellites and a report of link margin and Redden discloses diversity transmission and
an outage report [answer, page 5]. The examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Maveddat and Rydbeck, and have a
“several coverage satellite system, where diversity transmission from the satellites [is] such
that the link margin is based on the diversity transmission, and link outage report, as taught
by Arrington and Redden, thus allowing the reporting [to] be done for mobiles in fading
environments” [answer, page 5].
VI. Appellants argue the instant claimed system is “one of user terminal to satellite, user
terminal to satellite in a handoff depending on satellite visibility, whereas in the case of
Arrington and Redden it is user terminal to satellite to satellite to satellite to destination,
clearly nonanalogous and not properly combinable to reject the instant claims” [appeal brief,
page 10]. In the reply brief Appellants further argue that Arrington and Redden are non-
analogous references (with respect Maveddat in view of Rydbeck) as both Arrington and
Redden are directed to the Iridium satellite system which does not employ at least one
gateway bidirectionally coupled to a data communication network nor a controller responsive
to at least one criterion having been met for activating an indicator for informing a user of a
potential for reduced user terminal performance [reply brief, page 7].
The examiner responds that Maveddat and Rydbeck are both directed to the field of
satellite systems, and, in particular, to the specific problem of link quality. The examiner
asserts: “Arrington shows that in a mobile system more satellites can be used that generate
-12-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007