Appeal Number: 2006-1385
Application Number: 10/452,753
For the lack of any specific arguments by Appellants, and our agreement with
the Examiner’s position, we are not persuaded of any error in the part of the
examiner regarding the rejection of claim 2. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 2
under U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shridhara in view of Beesley is
sustained.
We turn next to claim 3. Appellants provide no specific arguments regarding
this claim, but generally argue that Shridhara and Beesley do not disclose
monitoring a signal correlator of the satellite positioning system receiver. From
our review of the record, we find the disclosure in Shridhara (col. 4, ll. 34-41) of
detecting a sudden rise in the correlator chain output would have suggested to an
artisan to monitor a signal correlator of the satellite positioning system receiver
(col. 4, ll. 39-41). 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 3.
For the lack of any specific arguments by Appellants, and our agreement with
the Examiner’s position, we are not persuaded of any error in the part of the
Examiner regarding the rejection of claim 3. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 3
under U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shridhara in view of Beesley is
sustained.
We turn next to claim 4. Appellants assert (Br. 7) that Shridhara and Beesley
do not disclose “disabling a PN code generator of the satellite positioning system
receiver upon detecting the presence of the jamming signal.” Appellants argue
(id.) that Shridhara turns off the receiver during jamming and Beesley does not
disclose a PN code generator. We sustain the rejection of claim 4 for the reasons
we sustained the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013