Appeal No. 2006-1697
Application No. 10/400,998
Regarding independent claims 1 and 17, the examiner's rejection
essentially finds that Ko teaches every claimed feature except for (1) determining
a link quality value for the omni-directional link, and (2) establishing a directional
link with the other mobile node if the link quality value is greater than a threshold
[answer, page 4]. The examiner cites Seiki as teaching such features and
concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention to modify Ko to use link quality to determine when to use
directional versus omni-directional antennas to ensure satisfactory antenna gain
[answer, pages 4 and 5].
Regarding independent claim 10, the examiner finds that although Seiki
teaches discontinuing the directional link if the link quality falls below a certain
threshold, neither Ko nor Seiki discloses that this threshold is lower than the first
threshold as claimed [answer, page 5]. The examiner, however, notes that it is
well known to add hysteresis by using a second threshold lower than a first
threshold to add stability and prevent thrashing about the threshold level. The
examiner then concludes that it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at
the time of the invention to add hysteresis by adding a second lower threshold to
Seiki to add stability by avoiding thrashing between the directional and omni-
directional antennas when the link quality is near the threshold [id.].
Appellant argues that no proper motivation or suggestion exists to
combine the references in the manner proposed by the examiner since this
would change the principle of operation of Ko’s system and render Ko
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007