Appeal Number: 2006-1385
Application Number: 10/452,753
We further find that Beesley teaches generating a blanking signal synchronized
with the jamming signal. Beesley explains that the blanking signal is generated in
response to the detected presence of the jamming (noise) signal (p. 2, ll. 22-26).
Beesley further explains that the duration and amplitude of the blanking signal is
dependent upon the amplitude and rate of arrival respectively, of the detected
jamming signal (p. 2, ll. 22-26 and p. 3, ll. 104-107). Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that Beesley discloses generating a blanking signal that is not only
similar to the jamming signal, but also synchronized with the jamming signal.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ assertion (Br. 5) that there is no reason to
combine Shridhara and Beesley. Appellants argue that there is no need to generate
the blanking signal, as disclosed by Beesley, in Shridhara because Shridhara either
turns off the receiver, suppresses GPS readings, or notifies the user (id.).
However, Shridhara does not limit the type of countermeasures to the ones
described by Appellants. Instead, Shridhara explains that “various jamming
countermeasures may be applied depending on the application in which the GPS
receiver is embedded” (col. 12, l. 66 to col. 13, l. 1).
From this disclosure of Shridhara, we find a suggestion of applying alternative
jamming countermeasures. As noted by the Examiner (Answer 5), Beesley teaches
a known alternative jamming countermeasure for reducing the effects of a detected
jamming signal in a receiver. From our review of Shridhara and Beesley, we agree
with the Examiner that it would have been obvious for an artisan to substitute one
of the jamming countermeasures in Shridhara with the one taught by Beesley,
which includes generating a blanking signal similar to and synchronized with the
jamming signal, in order to suppress the adverse effects of the jamming signal.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013