Appeal 2007-0277
Application 10/270,236
change in a buoy location, not irregularities between expected and derived GPS
parameters.
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive. Issuing a warning is well known.
Not only do Appellants admit this (FF 13) but Whyntie clearly shows issuing a
warning in the same context as it is used in the method claimed, i.e., when
comparing given and expected GPS coordinates. “The combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.” KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. In
that regard, Appellants have submitted no evidence to show that adding the known
step of issuing a warning to the Huston method yields an unpredictable result. We
therefore find no error in the Examiner’s rejection.
REMAND
The application is remanded to the Examiner for re-consideration of the
allowance of claims 2-12 and 17-37 in light our affirmance of the rejection of
claims 13-16 and 38. For example, we see little difference, if any, between claim
13 and claim 18. Claim 18 differs from claim 13 only in including the steps of
“identifying, in response to said issuing [i.e., issuing a warning], a potential source
of local interference; and neutralizing the source of local interference” (see claim
17 on which claim 18 depends). This additional step is admitted to be well known
in the art. See the Specification, p. 5, ll. 17-23 [“With the resulting warning of the
presence of interference, known techniques can be used to locate the source of the
interference and neutralize the same . . . if the interference were being generated by
16
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013