Appeal No. 97-0425
Application 08/330,335
claims 11-14 and 26-30 as proposed by the examiner.
3. The rejection of claims 15 and 16 as
unpatentable over Flannery in view of Merlo
and further in view of Fritzlen.
Representative claim 15 depends from claim 11 and
recites that there are a plurality of frequency comparison
means made up of phase locked loops. The examiner cites
Flannery and Merlo for the same reasons discussed above, and
the examiner observes that Fritzlen teaches monitoring a
plurality of Doppler frequencies using phase locked loops
[Final Rejection, page 4]. The examiner’s rationale for
combining the teachings of Flannery and Merlo with those of
Fritzlen is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness.
Appellant argues that Fritzlen does not suggest using
a phase locked loop for controlling a programmable filter
[brief, pages 21-22]. Fritzlen is cited, however, only to
show that Doppler velocities can be computed using phase
locked loops. It is Merlo who teaches that the programmable
filters should be controlled by the velocity of the vehicle.
Thus, the modification proposed by the examiner is to compute
-12-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007