Appeal 2007-0277
Application 10/270,236
• a satellite pseudorange determined by the marker,
• a rate of change of a satellite pseudorange, the satellite pseudorange being
determined by the marker,
• a rate of change of a signal-to-noise ratio associated with a GPS satellite
signal received by the marker,
• a rate of change of a carrier-to-noise ratio associated with a GPS satellite
signal received by the marker,
• a power associated with a GPS satellite signal received by the marker, and
• an in-band power density of a signal received from a GPS satellite by the
marker.
The Examiner has rejected claims 13-16 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over
Huston (US 5,751,244) in view of Whyntie (WO 89/05460).
ISSUES
The Examiner argues that Huston teaches all the claimed limitations but for
the step of “issuing a warning if the comparison indicates an irregularity between
any of the derived GPS parameters and any of the corresponding expected GPS
parameters.” To meet that limitation, the Examiner relies upon Whyntie. The
combination of Huston and Whyntie, the Examiner argues, would lead “a person
having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such well known warning feature as
taught in Whyntie into the Huston et al method so that a more informative method
can be provided to the user in the event that an error in GPS accuracy is detected in
the Huston et al system.” Answer 4.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013