Appeal Number: 2006-1385
Application Number: 10/452,753
Appellants assert (Br. 6), inter alia, that neither Shridhara nor Fielder disclose
a blanking signal having a pattern similar to the jamming signal and synchronized
with the jamming signal.
From our review of Fielder, the reference is directed to a GPS receiver with
improved immunity to burst transmissions (col. 1, ll. 1-2). Fielder discloses
reducing a jamming signal by substituting the bit-stream of the received signal
with a locally generated bit pattern in response to the presence of an overload
signal (col. 2, ll. 40-42). The locally generated bit pattern is set so that the average
value accumulated in the correlator tends towards zero (col. 5, ll. 37-42). While
the locally generated bit pattern in Fielder can be considered a blanking signal due
to the zeroing effect it has on the correlator, we find no suggestion that the locally
generated bit pattern is similar to the jamming signal. We conclude that the prior
art fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of claim 1. Accordingly, we
cannot sustain the rejection of claim 1 under U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Shridhara in view of Fielder.
We turn next to claims 2-9. We reverse the rejection of claims 2-9 due to their
dependency from claim 1, and the deficiencies of Fielder.
We turn next to claim 10. Appellants assert (Br. 11) that Shridhara in
combination with Fielder fail to teach synchronizing a blanking signal with a
jamming signal based upon a characteristic of the jamming signal. We agree.
From our review of Fielder, we find no suggestion for synchronizing the blanking
signal with a jamming signal based upon a characteristic of the jamming signal.
We conclude that the prior art fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
of claim 10. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 10 under U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shridhara in view of Fielder.
18
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013