Appeal 2007-1267 Application 09-967617 indicated in the Answer, page 18 The Appellants argue that the claimed platform state vector and user state vector are used to generate the relative position vectors with respect to the satellite or other device and the user. (Br. 20). We find that Sklar addresses the same problem of satellite location with coordinates using pedestal azimuth and pedestal elevation calculations (Col. 8, ll. 55). Examiner considers the claims obvious over this teaching, and we do not find error in that judgment. Rejection of Claims 14, 16, and 21 over Lazaris-Brunner and Sklar With respect to the rejection of Claims 14, 16, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Lazaris-Brunner and Sklar, Appellants argue that the plurality of dynamic links is not taught in Sklar. As we discussed above in connection with Claim 1, we find the teaching of dynamic links present in Sklar. With respect to Claim 16, Appellants argue that the teaching of national and local feeds is not taught in the references. We must find that Appellants are in error, as we agree with the Examiner that Lazaris-Brunner strongly suggests the recited feeds in column 4, line 18 and column 6, line 48 (Answer 21). Lazaris-Brunner also discloses multiple signals being transmitted on the plurality of links which, when combined with Sklar’s teaching of dynamic links, renders Claim 21 obvious. We thus find that the Examiner has not erred in this rejection. 12Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013