Appeal No. 2002-1879
Application No. 09/246,212
starting with the initial estimates of the operating
parameter solutions, provides successive operating
parameter solutions that converge. During each
iteration, the method and apparatus determine an
alertment bearing from the target vehicle to the
pursing vehicle at alertment. This serves as a basis
for determining the expected course and speed of the
target vehicle as a result of an evasive maneuver, with
the course being based upon the alertment bearing.
Once convergence has been achieved, the pursuing
vehicle receives guidance parameters based upon the
last target state estimates and the final solutions
[column 3, lines 43 through 63].
As conceded by the examiner (see page 3 in the final
rejection), Bessacini does not respond to the steps in
independent method claim 1, or the corresponding means in
independent apparatus claim 12,2 for defining the trajectory of
the target vehicle including the evasive maneuver on a second
Cartesian coordinate system and for converting the definition of
the target vehicle course from the second to the first Cartesian
coordinate system by rotating the second Cartesian coordinate
system by an angle equal to the difference between the aim point
path bearing and the determined bearing to the target.3 To
2 As claim 12 is an apparatus claim, the words “the steps
of” which appear after “comprising” should be deleted.
3 Upon return of the application to the technology center,
the examiner should review the descriptions of the first and
second Cartesian coordinate systems on specification pages 8
through 10 and the related recitations in claims 1, 7, 12 and 18,
particularly the portions relating to the ordinate axes of the
systems, to ensure that they are consistent and correct.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007