Appeal No. 2006-1221
Application No. 09/846,995
more cell areas and that when a mobile is receiving reduced performance it could handoff to
another cell to get better performance along with sending link reports to the system control
centers and mobiles. Redden shows using [a] diversity Satellite system to get better
reception” [answer, page 12]. The examiner notes that all four references are directed to
satellite systems, and that Maveddat and Rydbeck are directed to problems associated with
reduced link performance while Arrington and Redden disclose ways to get better link
performance. The examiner concludes that because Arrington and Redden are seen as curing
deficiencies in the system taught by Maveddat and Rydbeck, that the four references are
properly combined in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. [answer, page 12].
We agree with the examiner that the four references are properly combinable for at
least the reason of being analogous art. We note that Arrington and Redden (like Maveddat
and Rydbeck) are directed to the same field of endeavor, i.e., the satellite telephony art.
Accordingly, we shall sustain the examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 9, 11, 18, 20, 27, 29, and
31. With respect to claims 9, 18, and 27, we note that Rydbeck explicitly teaches the claimed
visual, tactile, and audible indicators at col. 3, lines 11-15, and also at col. 7, lines 43-50.
With respect to claim 29, Maveddat inherently teaches a determination is made at a gateway
when calls are rerouted from Gateway A to Gateway B for the duration of an outage [col. 9,
lines 1-22]. Likewise, dependent claims 2, 11, and 20 read upon the teaching of Maveddat
where “outages may be due to maintenance or repair,” whereby at least one satellite becomes
temporarily unavailable due to ground station repairs [col. 3, lines 10-11], this situation also
indicating a potential for a dropped call, as recited in dependent claim 31.
-13-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007