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
and
8, and in dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 14
through 19, is anticipated and/or rendered obvious by
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007