Appeal 2007-0277
Application 10/270,236
In arguing that Huston and Whyntie compare positions and not GPS
parameters (Appeal Br. 4), Appellants appear to give the term “parameter” as used
in claim 13 a special meaning that would distinguish it from information, such as
location, that one would normally obtain from a GPS receiver as used in Huston
and Whyntie. However, the claim suggests no special meaning for “parameter”
that would distinguish it from information, such as location normally obtained
from GPS receivers. Furthermore, the Specification lists location, for example, as
the type of information that fall under the term “parameter.” FF 2-4.
Regarding the term “derived,” the Specification gives it no special meaning.
The Specification uses the term “derived” to describe the transformative act
performed by the GPS receiver in converting satellite signals into GPS coordinates.
FF 5. Accordingly, in light of the Specification, one of ordinary skill in the art
would understand “derived” GPS parameter to mean the GPS parameter that the
GPS receiver gives, such as coordinates (i.e., location).
Regarding the term “expected,” the Specification attributes no special
meaning to this term either except to say that the source of the “expected” GPS
parameter may come “from known or calibrated information.” FF 6. In light of
this, one of ordinary skill in the art reading claim 13 would understand “expected”
GPS parameter to mean that particular GPS-related information which one would
expect the GPS receiver to give. The claim does not indicate how the “expected”
GPS parameter should be determined. Accordingly, claim 13 broadly encompasses
using “expected” GPS parameters no matter how they are determined.
Accordingly, based on the broadest reasonable construction of the claim in
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013