Appeal No. 2007-0329
Application No. 08/498,749
It is this feature that is substantially taught in Wasilewski as relied
upon by the Examiner. Even if both parties agree, and we are aware of the
fact that Wasilewski does not relate to cellular mobile radio networks per se,
the feature is only pertinent to independent claims 22, 27, 32, and 37,
whereas independent claims 43 and 49 do not recite this feature. What
Wasilewski does explicitly teach is that it is related to satellite transmission
systems which are considered to be part of a separate physical link according
to the teachings of this reference. Even though Wasilewski is not directly
concerned with the environmental use of cellular mobile radio networks as
in independent claims 22, 27, 32, and 37, we consider it reasonably pertinent
to the particular problems with which the inventor is involved in this appeal
because it relates to satellite (radio frequency) communications
environments. Note In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59, 23 USPQ2d 1058,
1060 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Note also the common sense analysis in In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1445-46 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
as to what fields of endeavor an artisan would reasonably be expected to
look for a solution to the problems facing the Appellant.
Whereas we similarly agree with the Appellants’ view that
Wasilewski does not explain why the packet area indicator 62 is located
after the sync byte 60 in header 18 of each packet 16 in Figure 3, it is simply
not explicit as to its reasoning. The paragraph bridging columns 3 and 4 of
this reference and the next succeeding paragraph at column 4 appear to
plainly indicate to the artisan that the placement of the packet area indicator
at the beginning of each payload 20 of each packet 16 is to ensure that the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013