Appeal No. 2006-2067
Application 10/437,836
within a common lane, the appellant argues that “Madsen only uses time delay as a
measurement of range and ultimately phase” (brief, page 5). Madsen performs elevation
measurements in multiple channels, i.e., the channels of the two antennas, within a
common lane that includes area 130 (col. 4, lines 58-63).
For the above reasons we conclude that the invention claimed in the appellant’s
claims 13-16 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over the applied
prior art.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Madsen in view of Marino is
reversed as to claims 1-12 and 17-20, and affirmed as to claims 13-16.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007