Appeal No. 2001-0906
Application No. 08/597,073
that Hutcheson ‘058 compares the received control channel sample against a threshold value to yield
a binary yes or no answer. Notwithstanding the outcome of the comparison, Hutcheson ‘058
compares the “received power level” (column 5, lines 38 through 43) of the received control
channels against a threshold value or reference power (column 5, lines 50 through 52). Appellants’
argue (supplemental brief, page 5) that the cell selection process in Hutcheson ‘058 “is concerned
with determining a ‘range rate’ associated with a terminal and a transceiver, i.e., the relative rate at
which the terminal unit is approaching or receding from the transceiver” and not with “estimating
the position of the terminal.” We agree. Hutcheson is completely silent as to estimating a position
of the terminal using the relative powers as set forth in the penultimate step of claim 1. Appellants
argue (supplemental brief, page 7) that the secondary reference to Olds discloses the use of “beam
propagation models” to determine an effective receive signal quality associated with beams, and
does not use a “model of spot beam shape” in estimating a position of the terminal. We agree.
Accordingly, the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 7, 16 through 19, 21 through 23 and 27
through 29 is reversed because the combined teachings of Hutcheson ‘058 and Olds neither teaches
nor would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the ultimate step of claim 1 or the
penultimate step of claim 16.
Hutcheson ‘059 was relied on by the examiner for its teaching of the “use of Doppler
compensation (Abstract, etc.) for the purpose of equalizing the various input signal for differences
in Doppler frequency offsets due to satellite motion, differences in propagation delays and
differences in phase shift” (answer, page 7). Appellants argue (supplemental brief, page 8) that
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007