Ex parte CHANG et al. - Page 8

          Appeal No. 2000-2085                                                        
          Application No. 08/803,937                                                  

            signals on Ames’ return link signal 24'.  The examiner’s                  
            rationale here (see pages 3 and 4 in the answer) is that                  
            signal 24' effectively constitutes both a second ranging                  
            signal and a fourth ranging signal as recited in claims 1                 
            and 8 because it serves the respective purposes of the                    
            second and fourth ranging signals in determining first                    
            and second delays (claim 1) or time lengths (claim 8)                     
            used to ultimately determine the position of the object.                  
            While the examiner’s finding that Ames’ signal 24' has                    
            this dual purpose is arguably sound, the fact remains                     
            that signal 24' is but a single signal.  As such, it                      
            conceivably meets the claim limitations relating to                       
            either the second ranging signal or the fourth ranging                    
            signal, but not both.  Moreover, there is nothing in the                  
            teachings of Ames which would have suggested replacing                    
            signal 24' with two signals.  Thus, the examiner’s                        
            conclusion that the subject matter recited in claims 1                    

            8, and in dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 14                       
            through 19, is anticipated and/or rendered obvious by                     

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007