Appeal 2007-0277
Application 10/270,236
light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the
art, the step in claim 13 of “comparing the at least one derived GPS parameter with
a corresponding at least one expected GPS parameter” is construed to mean
comparing a GPS parameter the receiver gives with a GPS parameter that one
would expect a GPS receiver to give.
Obviousness
Huston discloses a technique for calibrating GPS receivers to account for
GPS satellite signal errors. FF 8. The technique involves comparing an apparent
range of the GPS receiver to a satellite with an estimated range of the GPS receiver
to the satellite. FF 8. Huston further discloses that, where the satellite is a new
satellite, the calibration involves comparing a pseudorange from the new satellite
to the GPS receiver with a computed range. FF 9.
Huston’s pseudorange is a GPS parameter. FF 10. Therefore, Huston
discloses the limitation in the claim “wherein the expected GPS parameter and the
derived GPS parameter comprise at least one of: . . . a satellite pseudorange
determined by a marker . . . .”
Huston’s pseudorange is determined using conventional GPS techniques.
FF 9. Therefore, Huston’s pseudorange is a GPS parameter that the GPS receiver
gives. Since we have construed the claimed “derived GPS parameter” to mean a
GPS parameter that the GPS receiver gives, Huston’s pseudorange meets that
limitation.
Huston’s estimated/computed range involves calculating the range of the
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013