Ex parte DENT

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 28, 2001

08263835 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 28, 2001)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board
Paper No. 25
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte PAUL W. DENT
__________
Appeal No. 1999-1516
Application 08/263,835
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before THOMAS, KRASS and DIXON, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant has appealed to the Board from the examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-
8, 15 and 16, which constitute all the claims in the application.
Claim 16 is reproduced below:
16. A method of providing radio communication service to a plurality of subscriber
terminals comprising the steps of:
launching a satellite into geostationary orbit at a first altitude and launching at least
one satellite into non-geostationary orbit at a second altitude lower than said first altitude,
Appeal No. 1999-1516
Application 08/263,835
The examiner’s concerns raised under 37 CFR §1.75(c) as to claim 5 are1
petitionable and not appealable.
2
wherein the satellite in geostationary orbit provides radio communication service to
at least one of the subscriber terminals during a period that said subscriber terminal
cannot access the at least one satellite in non-geostationary orbit.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Grant et al. (Grant) 5,119,225 June 2, 1992
Weinberg 5,589,834 Dec. 31, 1996
(filing date Apr. 22, 1994)
Rouffet et al. (Rouffet) 5,625,867 Apr. 29, 1997
(filing date Sept. 30, 1992)
Ballard, "Rosette Constellations of Earth Satellites," IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and
Electronic Systems, Vol. AES-16, No. 5, pp. 656-673 (Sept. 1980).
Claims 1-8, 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103. As evidence of
obviousness, the examiner relies upon Rouffet in view Grant as to claim 16. To this
combination the examiner adds Weinberg as to claims 1-3, 5, 6 and 15, with the further
addition of Ballard as to claims 4, 7 and 8.1
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the examiner, reference is
made to the brief and the answer for the details thereof.
Appeal No. 1999-1516
Application 08/263,835
3
OPINION
We reverse all rejections of the claims on appeal.
Turning first to the rejection of claim 16, we conclude that the wherein clause noted
above in our reproduction of claim 16 earlier in this opinion cannot be met by the proposed
combination of Rouffet and Grant even if they are properly combinable within 35 U.S.C.
§103.
Grant encompasses the launching of a geostationary orbit first satellite and at least
one satellite into a non-geostationary orbit at a second altitude lower than the first altitude
by the showings of the GEO satellite and the LEO or lower earth satellites. As the
examiner’s statement of the rejection notes, Rouffet teaches only low earth orbit satellites,
LEO satellites, which may communicate among themselves in passing off or handing off
communications to earth stations or terminals on the earth. Rouffet does not disclose the
use of any satellites in a geostationary orbit.
On the other hand, while Rouffet provides communications between each of the
satellites shown in the figures in connection stations 12 and terminals 13, Grant only
communicates by means of the geosatellite to the ground station GS in Figure 1. The
Appeal No. 1999-1516
Application 08/263,835
4
separate LEO satellites in this figure only communicate with the geosatellite and not with
any ground station or ground terminal.
A careful reading of the wherein clause of claim 16 requires first that the
geostationary satellite and the satellite in non-geostationary orbit both communicate
individually to the claimed subscriber terminals, in addition to the special conditions
recited therein that the geostationary satellite provides radio communication service to at
least one of the subscriber terminals during a period that the subscriber terminal cannot
access via at least one non-geostationary orbit satellite. These conditions cannot be met
according to the teachings and showings and suggestions provided by the communication
of Rouffet and Grant as proposed by the examiner.
As appellant observes at page 5 of the brief "[m]erely because Grant shows
satellites orbiting at two different altitudes, the deficiencies of Rouffet are not remedied."
We also are in agreement with appellant’s observations at page 6 of the brief that "neither
Grant nor Rouffet suggest handing off communications to a satellite that is in a higher orbit.
Instead, Rouffet hands off only to a satellite orbiting at the same altitude and, .... Grant
relates inter-satellite communication wherein the concept of handoff, as it applies to
selecting an appropriate server for subscriber terminals, has no meaningful application."
Appeal No. 1999-1516
Application 08/263,835
5
The examiner’s reliance upon the handing off teachings at columns 5 and 6 of Rouffet are
misplaced because the discussion there relating to the decision to hand off depending on
the availability of a satellite having a better elevation or a higher orbit is all within the
context of low earth orbit satellites only. Taken is conjunction with Grant, we do not see that
the artisan would have found such a teaching as suggesting the ability to hand off between
the LEO satellites of Grant to a GEO satellite or vice-versa as proposed by the examiner.
As indicated earlier, the ground station in Grant always communicates with the GEO
satellite and the LEO satellites always communicate with the GEO satellite. There is no
separate communication in Grant between the LEO satellites and the ground station to
suggest a handing off operation within Grant itself such that the examiner’s proposal would
have merit.
Since we reversed the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we also reverse
the additional two stated rejections of the remaining claims on appeal further in view of
Weinberg and Ballard. These latter rejections must be reversed even though independent
claims 1, 2, and 7 on appeal more specifically recite the use of medium earth orbit or MEO
satellites. Weinberg and Ballard are thus not seen to cure the basic deficiencies provided
by the combination of Rouffet and Grant.
Appeal No. 1999-1516
Application 08/263,835
6
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-8, 15 and
16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
James D. Thomas )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Errol A. Krass )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Joseph L. Dixon )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JDT/cam
Ronald D. Grudziecki
Burns, Doane, Swecker, & Mathis
P. O. Box 1404
Alexandria, VA 22314-1404