Appeal No. 2006-2918
Application 09/844,919
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 92. The examiner took
Official Notice of stratospheric platforms and explained why it would have
been obvious to the artisan to modify Allport’s system to include a
stratospheric platform. Appellant’s argument regarding a wireless local area
network is not persuasive because Allport teaches such a network for
reasons discussed above. Appellant’s argument regarding hindsight
reconstruction is not persuasive because the evidence on this record clearly
establishes that it was conventional in the art to deliver video content by
using a stratospheric platform. Appellant has failed to address the merits of
the examiner’s position as to why the invention of claim 9 would have been
obvious in view of the cited evidence.
With respect to claim 11, appellant argues that although compression is
known, the combination of compression with a base station that forms a
wireless local area network is not taught or suggested by Allport [brief, page
9]. The examiner responds that Allport teaches everything except
compression, and the examiner cites Hendricks as teaching compression
[answer, pages 7-8]. Appellant responds that the examiner’s citation of
Hendricks represents hindsight reconstruction of the invention. Appellant
points out that since the rejection was on Allport taken alone, the citation of
Hendricks indicates that the rejection is deficient in making out a prima facie
case of obviousness [reply brief, page 4].
2 We note that there is no antecedent basis for the phrase “said high altitude device” in claims 8 and 9.
Perhaps these claims should depend from claim 7 instead of claim 1.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007