Appeal 2007-0277
Application 10/270,236
FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a preponderance
of the evidence.
Claim Construction
Re the step of “comparing the at least one derived GPS parameter with a
corresponding at least one expected GPS parameter”.
1. The Specification gives no special meaning to the terms “derived,”
“expected,” and “GPS parameter.”
2. The Specification uses the term “parameter” and “data” interchangeably.
3. “Location,” for example, is described in the Specification as a GPS-related
data:
Once in operation, interference detector 100 will receive GPS signals
from the GPS network in the manner noted above. The resulting GPS related
data (e.g., one or more of location, number of satellites, signal-to-noise
ratio, etc.) are compared with the expected GPS parameters. Deviation
between the parameters of the received GPS signals and one or more of the
expected GPS parameters (either by any amount or by a predetermined
amount of tolerance as may be preset or set at the time of the comparison)
represents an irregularity that indicates that local interference is blocking the
clean receipt of GPS.
Specification, p. 7, ll. 7-14.
4. “Location” is also described as a GPS parameter.
“Various known or expected GPS parameters for each of the interference
detectors 400 are stored in a memory in monitoring unit 410, including
location, number of GPS satellites . . . .”
Specification, p. 12, ll. 13-15.
5. The term “derived” appears in the Specification in three places:
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013