Ex Parte Irvin et al - Page 9



            Appeal 2007-0277                                                                                 
            Application 10/270,236                                                                           

                   includes the steps of: …] selecting another GPS satellite not a member of                 
                   said first set of GPS satellites; determining an apparent range of said GPS               
                   receiver positioned at said second location to said other GPS satellite;                  
                   calculating an estimated range from said GPS receiver positioned at said                  
                   second location to said other satellite using said corrected position; and                
                   calculating a range error correction for said other GPS satellite based on the            
                   difference between said estimated range and apparent range.                               
            9.  Column 6, lines 32-37 of Huston read as follows:                                             
                         [This dynamic calibration of a new satellite is performed by first                  
                   determining a corrected position of the GPS receiver.  This corrected                     
                   position is obtained by determining an apparent position and applying the                 
                   current error correction.  Col. 6, ll. 28-31.] Second, a range from the                   
                   corrected position to the new satellite is computed.  Next, a pseudorange                 
                   from the new satellite to the GPS receiver is determined using the                        
                   conventional GPS technique.  Finally, the pseudorange is compared to the                  
                   computed range to derive a range correction to the pseudorange.                           
            10.  Appellants admit that a “pseudorange” is a GPS parameter.  See                              
            Specification, e.g., p. 12, l. 18.                                                               
            11. The Examiner found that the only difference between the claimed subject                      
            matter and Huston is the step to “issuing a warning.”                                            
                   The difference between the claimed invention and that disclosed in Huston                 
                   et al is that the latter does not disclose the claimed feature of issuing a               
                   warning if there is a difference or irregularity between the derived parameter            
                   and the corresponding expected parameter.  However, such missing feature                  
                   in Huston et al is clearly taught in the abstract of the Whyntie reference.               
            Answer 4.                                                                                        
            12.  Whyntie discloses issuing a warning when received GPS-position data does                    
            not match stored position data.                                                                  
                   The GPS [positional] data is received by the receiver 6 and input to the                  
                                                     9                                                       



Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013