Appeal 2006-3245
Application 10/383,224
anticipates the subject matter of claims 1-3, 6-8, and 10, and renders obvious the
subject matter of claims 4, 5, and 9. More particularly, the issue before us is
whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Hirvonen
discloses incorporating a presentation of time into at least one input data
component where the presentation of time is periodic, continuous and
unambiguous.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence:
Hirvonen discloses a system for detecting and positioning objects or
objectives, both above and under sea-level (Hirvonen, col. 1, ll. 6-8).
The system of Hirvonen detects objects by measuring variations, signs,
indications, disturbances or the like caused by the objects (Hirvonen, col. 1, ll. 17-
19).
The system of Hirvonen uses anomaly detection methods to compare the
measured state of the electric field of a conductive object to the states measured at
corresponding points in a similar faultless object (Hirvonen, col. 4, ll. 47-50).
Hirvonen discloses using a three-dimensional model of the electric field in a
surveillance area to position an object in the deep sea (Hirvonen, col. 12, ll. 43-45).
The system of Hirvonen gathers measured observations of disturbances in
the electric field caused by a foreign object as it passes through the surveillance
area and uses this data to calculate, from the three-dimensional model, in which
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013