Appeal 2007-0277
Application 10/270,236
GPS receiver to a satellite. The computation is disclosed as including a correction
to take into account an error. FF 9. One of ordinary skill in the art reading Huston
would understand that a GPS range computation that includes an error correction
amounts to a GPS-range that one would expect the GPS receiver to give. Since we
have construed the claimed “expected GPS parameter” to mean particular GPS-
related information which one would expect the GPS receiver to give, irrespective
of how it is determined, Huston’s estimated/computed range meets that limitation.
Appellants argue that Huston fails to meet the claim because it compares
different parameters. According to Appellants, Huston compares a pseduorange
with a calculated range, not with a corresponding expected pseudorange. Appeal
Br. 6. Appellants argue that because the Examiner notes that Huston compares a
pseudorange and an estimated range, the Examiner concedes that Huston does not
compare a derived parameter and a corresponding expected parameter (Reply Br.
2-4).
This argument implies that claim 13 limits the comparing step to being made
between the same two parameters. We find nothing in the claim which requires
that both the derived and expected GPS parameters must be, for example,
pseudoranges. So long as Huston shows comparing a derived and a corresponding
expected GPS parameter wherein “the expected GPS parameter and the derived
parameter comprise at least one of . . . [pseudorange],” Huston meets the
limitation. In that regard, Huston’s two compared parameters “comprise at least
one of . . . [pseudorange].”
Even if we were to assume for argument’s sake that to meet the claim, both
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013