Appeal No. 2002-2169 Page 17
Application No. 09/163,286
Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1025, 226 USPQ 881, 886-87 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (quoting Keller, 642
F.2d at 425, 208 USPQ at 881).
Here, the rejection is based on the combined teachings of Liessner and
Osterdock. The appellants' argument that Liessner individually does not anticipate the
aforementioned limitations overlooks what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Specifically, when a GPS
receiver as taught by Osterdock was used to control Liessner's reference oscillator, we
find that the receiver would have "provide[d] a 1 PPS output." Osterdock, p. 38, col. 2.
We further find that the timing accuracy imparted by such a receiver would relate
directly to "atomic standards on board each of the [GPS] satellites. . . ." Id., col. 1.
Therefore, we affirm the obviousness rejection of claim 1 and of claims 4-7, which fall
therewith.
Claim 2
The examiner asserts, "[t]he features of the theodolites are conventional in the
art." (Examiner's Answer at 5.) The appellants argue, "[t]he cited references fail to
teach or suggest," (Reply Br. at 5), an "additional interconnected theodolite navigation
computer and servo activator with specified interconnection." (Reply Br. at 5.)
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007