Appeal No. 2006-1697
Application No. 10/400,998
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose [brief, page 9]. Appellant notes that in Ko,
if node X experiences good quality of service (i.e., no blockage), then an omni-
directional Request-to-Send (RTS) is used (i.e., an omni-directional antenna is
preferred). But if node X experiences poor quality of service (i.e., a blockage
exists), then a directional RTS is used or none at all [brief, pages 13 and 14].
According to appellant, Ko’s preference for an omni-directional antenna is directly
contrary to Seiki who uses an omni-directional antenna when the quality of
service is poor, and a directional antenna when quality of service is good [id.;
reply brief, pages 4 and 5].
The examiner responds that Seiki uses the omni-directional antenna’s
signal strength to determine which antenna to use (i.e., directional or omni-
directional) [answer, page 11]. The examiner notes that applying Seiki’s
teachings to Ko, the directional antenna is not even considered unless the omni-
directional link quality is sufficient (i.e., signal strength is greater than a threshold)
to ensure satisfactory antenna gain [answer, page 11]. According to the
examiner, such a teaching is not contrary to Ko since it is reasonable to use
Seiki’s teaching to determine if the omni-directional antenna’s signal strength is
high enough to justify using the directional antenna [answer, page 13].
We will sustain the examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent
claims 1, 10, and 17. At the outset, we note that the secondary reference, Seiki,
discloses essentially all of the subject matter of claims 1 and 17 except for a
plurality of mobile nodes. We further note that the broadest reasonable
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007