Appeal 2007-1267
Application 09-967617
Claim 2 falls with claim 1. (Br. 7).
Claim 3 requires that satellites of the communication infrastructure
comprise satellites from two constellations. Appellants argue that this
limitation is not shown in Sklar. (Br. 14). Appellants acknowledge
Examiner’s observation that Sklar mentions different constellations of
satellites. (Reply Br. 2.) However, Appellants argue that the satellites may
be from only one constellation. We find the mention of the satellites of
different constellations in Sklar (see especially Column 13, middle)
sufficient to anticipate the claim as multiple satellites are used in Sklar
without limitation concerning the respective constellation of the satellites.
Claim 4 falls with claim 1. (Br. 7).
Claim 18 presents the same arguments as Claim 1, which we found
anticipated by Sklar. (Br. 8).
Claim 19 requires a second plurality of datagrams, a second plurality
of dynamic communication links, and reassembling the second plurality of
datagrams into the communication at the user terminal. Examiner in his
Answer presents the two pluralities of datagrams and communication links
(Answer 14-15) based on the two signal sources in Sklar. We do not find
error in his application of the art.
Claim 20 requires the plurality of dynamic links, multiple datagrams,
and a choice of two devices of the infrastructure from those listed.
Considering the remarks above with respect to claims 1 and 3, we do not
find error in the rejection of this claim.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013