Appeal 2007-0277
Application 10/270,236
Appellants make three rebuttal arguments.
First, Appellants argue that Huston and Whyntie compare a desired GPS
position with a detected GPS position “but do not compare any of the GPS
parameters listed in claim 13.” Appeal Br. 4. According to Appellants “[i]n the
Huston and Whyntie references, the comparison is based solely on GPS position,
i.e., the finished product. In contrast, the invention of claim 13 is directed to
comparing parameters related to the GPS position, but which are not the GPS
position itself.” Appeal Br. 5.
Second, Appellants argue that Huston discloses, at col. 6, lines 28-36,
comparing a pseudorange determined from a new satellite to the GPS receiver to a
calculated range from the corrected position to the new satellite and thus derive a
range correction to the pseudorange. Appeal Br. 6. Appellants argue that this
disclosure fails to meet the claim because it compares different parameters; i.e., no
parameter (e.g., pseudorange or calculated range) is compared to a corresponding
expected parameter. According to Appellants, Huston compares a pseduorange
with a calculated range, not for instance a corresponding expected pseudorange.
Third, Appellants argue that neither Huston nor Whyntie suggest the claimed
warning step. According to Appellants, Whyntie teaches warning when a buoy
strays from its GPS position, as in contrast to the method of claim 13 where the
warning results from an irregularity between the derived GPS parameter and the
corresponding expected GPS parameter. Appeal Br. 6-7.
The Examiner responds to the arguments in this way. First, the Examiner
argues that Huston’s discussion involving pseudoranges (relying on col. 5, ll. 3-11
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013