Appeal No. 2006-1697
Application No. 10/400,998
interpretation of the term “mobile node” as claimed does not preclude mobile,
user-operated, wireless communications devices such as cellular telephones.
Seiki in Fig. 4 discloses (1) establishing an omni-directional link with another
node (step S10); (2) determining a link quality value for the omni-directional link
(step S22); and (3) establishing a directional link with the other node if the link
quality value is greater than a quality threshold (step S30) [Seiki, Fig. 4, ¶ 0029-
0031].
Although Seiki does not disclose that the other node is mobile,
communication between mobile nodes using directional and omni-directional
antennas to establish a mobile network is amply taught by Ko. Furthermore,
although Seiki’s preferred embodiment is a cellular telephone, it is not so limited.
Rather, Seiki’s system is applicable to a wide variety of mobile wireless
communication devices generally [Seiki, ¶ 0046]. Compare Seiki, claim 1
(broadly reciting a “mobile communications device”) with claim 5 (narrowing the
“mobile communications device” to a cellular telephone device). In view of Ko, it
would have been obvious in our view for the skilled artisan to provide an
additional mobile node in the system of Seiki to establish a mobile network.
In short, the collective teachings of Seiki and Ko amply teach or suggest
all limitations claimed in independent claims 1 and 17. Even though we sustain
the examiner’s rejection for different reasons than those advanced by the
examiner, our position is still based upon the collective teachings of the
references and does not constitute a new ground of rejection. In re Bush, 296
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007