Appeal No. 2002-1153
Application No. 09/063,720
arguments only for claims 8 and 24 and rely on the same reasoning
for the other claims (brief, pages 11-15). Therefore, we address
each ground of rejection separately to the extent that is argued
by Appellants and select claims 8 and 24 as the representative
claims. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7).
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of the claims,
Appellants point out that Cisneros discloses the use of an
uncoordinated beacon system in conjunction with an absolute
positioning system (brief, page 6). Appellants further argue
that even if the Uncoordinated Broadcast Signal (UBS) may be
equated with a satellite radiotelephone system, the UBS signals
are actually clock error signals used, at the best, for
correcting the timing of the relatively coarse position signals
of the GPS system (id.).
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner merely
repeats the statement of the rejection which equates the
compensation of the timing errors of the GPS local clock with the
claimed determining an accurate position based on the coarse
position (answer, pages 4-7 and 13-16). In particular, the
Examiner relies on Figures 17 and 18 of Cisneros and concludes
that the pseudorange estimate of the GPS is the accurate position
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007