Appeal 2006-2252
Application 10/397,012
the GPS receivers are L-band receivers, neither claim 14 nor claim 28 recite
L-band receivers. We will also sustain the rejection as it is directed to
claims 2 to 4, 6 to 8, 10, 11, 14 to 19, 21 to 26, and 28 to 31 because the
Appellants have not argued the separate patentability of these claims with
any specificity. 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(vii).
We will not sustain this rejection as it is directed to claims 5, 9, 12,
13, 20, and 27 because Brodie does not disclose that the satellite’s own
navigation signal can be cancelled by the GPS receiver’s signal processor.
We will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 to 3, 6, 7, 10,
14 to 16, 18, 19, 21 to 23, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Murphy because Murphy does not disclose a GPS system.
We will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 9, 20, and 27 under
25 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy in view of Green for the
same reason.
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 8, 11 to 13, 17,
24, and 28 to 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
combined teachings of Murphy and Brodie and the rejection of claims 4, 8,
11 to 13, 17, 24, and 28 to 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the combined teachings of Green and Brodie because it is our view that
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013