Appeal No. 2001-2017
Application No. 09/098,049
according to appellant, Schuchman’s “broadcast digital channels”
at most, support call set-up and do not, themselves, provide the
assistance information. That is, in appellant’s view, Schuchman
“simply does not teach or suggest broadcasting the positioning
data on a broadcast channel but, instead, suggests the use of a
traffic channel established responsive to a request for the
information” [principal brief-page 7].
Further, appellant contends that Wortham does not provide
for the deficiency of Schuchman. While appellant admits that it
is known to transmit control data via a control channel, which is
all that Wortham is cited for by the examiner, appellant argues
that Schuchman not only fails to teach the control channel, but
also a broadcast channel and that it is not appropriate to
separate the content of the broadcast information, i.e.,
“positioning data,” as recited in the claims, from the form of
broadcast which are both included in a single step recitation.
Appellant points out that the combination of references is
not appropriate because Schuchman is not directed to differential
GPS while Wortham is directed to differential GPS. Accordingly,
in appellant’s view, Schuchman provides for assistance
information for use in acquiring satellites while correction
information is provided in Wortham to refine the accuracy of
-4–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007