Appeal 2007-0277
Application 10/270,236
of Huston’s two compared parameters would have to be pseudoranges, Appellants
fail to show fault in the Examiner’s logic that Huston’s computed/estimated range
corresponds to an expected pseudorange. “As well known in the art, the reason
that ‘pseudorange’ instead of just ‘range‘ is called because the calculated range is
not a true range due to the clock errors existed [sic] between the GPS receiver and
the GPS satellite.” Answer 6. Appellants do not explain the significance of the
difference, if there is one, between the range Huston calls a “pseudorange” and the
range Huston estimates. Other than showing that Huston does not explicitly
mention an “estimated pseudorange,” Appellants provide no convincing
explanation as to why Huston’s estimated range does not correspond to an
estimated pseudorange.
For the foregoing reasons, we find, in agreement with the Examiner, that
given the broadest reasonable construction of claim 13 in light of the specification
as interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art, Huston discloses the step of
“comparing the at least one derived GPS parameter with a corresponding at least
one expected GPS parameter”.
Accordingly, we also agree with the Examiner that the only difference
between the claimed subject matter and Huston is the step to “issuing a warning.”
FF 11.
As to the step of “issuing a warning,” the Examiner relies on Whyntie. It
discloses issuing a warning when received GPS-position data does not match
stored position data. FF 12. Appellants take issue with the relevance of Whyntie
because, according to Appellants, the warning Whyntie issues results from a
15
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013