Appeal No. 2002-0767
Application No. 09/382,381
coordinate system based on the relative phase differences of the
GPS signals received at the various antennas (407-410), and does
not, as the examiner urges, appear to perform any calculations or
determination with respect to a predetermined landing system
vector. Moreover, as we noted above, there is no indication in
Denninger that the attitude solution computer utilizes "a vector
representative of a separation characteristic between said first
positioning system antenna and said first landing system antenna
location," as in claim 1 on appeal, to provide precise
computation of glideslope and localizer deviation signals.
As for the remaining claims subject to this ground of
rejection, the examiner has simply not made out a prima facie
case of anticipation by clearly setting forth facts and an
explanation of exactly how the system of Denninger performs or
teaches a method as set forth in appellants' claim 14 on appeal,
or that Denninger's system includes an apparatus like that
defined in claim 18 on appeal. The examiner's mere assertion
(answer, pages 8 and 9) that the attitude sensor (201) of
Denninger performs the method of appellants' claim 14 and that
this sensor also corresponds to the apparatus of claim 18 on
appeal does not come close to meeting the examiner's burden of
1111
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007