Appeal Number: 2006-1385
Application Number: 10/452,753
Nor are we persuaded by Appellants’ assertion (Br. 5) that “in Beesley, the
noise generated by the ignition system is random and thus does not have a ‘known
pattern’.” The fact that noise is random does not necessarily mean that the noise
does not have a known pattern for the following reasons. It depends on whether
the pattern of the random noise must be known beforehand—predetermined—or
can be known after the noise is detected. Here, claim 1 merely recites a “jamming
signal having a known pattern.” Claim 1 does not require however, that the
jamming signal have a known pattern that is predetermined. In Beesley, the
pattern of the jamming signal becomes known once it is detected by the pulse
detector and the amplitude and rate of arrival of the jamming signal are
determined. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Beesley discloses a
jamming signal having a known pattern.
From all of the above, we conclude that the combined teachings of Shridhara
and Beesley would have suggested to an artisan the invention of claim 1, and are
not convinced of any error on the part of the Examiner in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shridhara in view of Beesley.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is sustained.
We turn next to claim 2. Appellants provide no specific arguments regarding
this claim, but generally argue that Shridhara and Beesley do not disclose
monitoring the satellite positioning receiver. From our review of the record, we
find that Shridhara discloses monitoring the satellite positioning receiver (column
4, lines 31-57). Therefore, we are in agreement with the Examiner, for the reasons
set forth in the answer, that the teachings of Shridhara would have suggested to an
artisan the invention set forth in claim 2.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013