Appeal No. 2006-2067
Application 10/437,836
patterned into a plurality of sampling lanes to determine the elevation of a region larger than
a single sampling lane.
Claim 13 also requires a processor to perform elevation measurements of the terrain,
including an operational mode that can be time delay response. The appellant argues that
Madsen’s time delay is a means to measure range, whereas the appellant’s time delay “is
used to measure the occurrence of a response along the flight line, which in conjunction
with the unique cross-shaped antenna pattern footprints is used to measure cross-track
position of a prominent scatterer” (brief, page 3). The appellant’s claim 13 does not require
a cross-shaped antenna pattern. Madsen’s residual delay estimation determines a phase
shift that is proportional to twice the time delay of the uncompensated range difference
between two antennas and, therefore, reasonably can be considered a time-delay-response
operational mode (col. 11, lines 6-9 and 55-65). The appellant has not defined “time-delay-
response”, let alone define it in a way that would exclude Madsen’s residual delay
estimation.
The appellant argues, regarding claim 14 which depends from claim 13, that Madsen
does not disclose amplitude monopulse (brief, page 4). Claim 14 does not recite amplitude
monopulse but, rather, recites phase monopulse. The claim, however, does not require
phase monopulse. The claim merely requires that if the operational mode is phase
monopulse, it utilizes interferometric Doppler beam sharpening. The claim, like claim 13,
can be met by the operational mode being time-delay-response.
Regarding claim 16, which depends from claim 13 and requires that the time-delay-
response mode is implemented by performing elevation measurements in multiple channels
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007