Appeal 2007-0277
Application 10/270,236
and col. 6, ll. 32-37) describes comparing an apparent range and an estimated
range. According to the Examiner, “apparent range” and “estimated range”
correspond to the claimed derived GPS parameter and expected GPS parameter.
Answer 5. Second, the Examiner argues that Huston’s estimated range
corresponds to an “expected pseudorange” because their functions are the same.
Answer 6. Third, the Examiner argues that Whyntie was merely cited “to show the
feature of issuing a warning . . . is well known in the GPS art.” Answer 6.
Appellants reply that, first, the claim calls for comparing a derived
parameter and a corresponding expected parameter; second, because the Examiner
notes that Huston compares pseudorange and an estimated range, the Examiner
concedes that Huston does not compare a derived parameter and a corresponding
expected parameter (e.g., expected pseudorange); and, third, Whyntie teaches a
warning system responsive to a particular situation rather than responsive to
differences in GPS parameters. Reply Br. 2-4. Appellants also take issue with the
Examiner’s view that an “estimated range” and “expected parameter” correspond
to each other on the grounds that they have the same function. Reply Br. 3.
Accordingly, the issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding (a) that
Huston suggests the step of “comparing the at least one derived GPS parameter
with a corresponding at least one expected GPS parameter” and (b) that Whyntie
suggests 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.”
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013