Appeal 2007-0277
Application 10/270,236
a spark gap in a generator at an airport, the generator would be located and
repaired to remove the spark gap.”] There is nothing on the record to explain why
claim 18 has been indicated as allowable when the only difference between it and
claim 13, which the Examiner rejected, is the addition of a well known step of
removing an obstruction to the GPS signal causing the interference.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
On the record before us, Appellants have failed to show that the Examiner
erred in rejecting the claims over the prior art.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 13-16 and 38 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
jlb
Steptoe & Johnson LLP
Stuart T.F. Huang
USPTO/Patent
1330 Connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20036
17
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Last modified: September 9, 2013