Ex Parte Beauregard et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 14, 2007

10397012 (B.P.A.I. May. 14, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JOHN G. BEAUREGARD, and
DAVID B. LEVIN
____________

Appeal 2006-2252
Application 10/397,012
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: May 14, 2007
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, LINDA E. HORNER, and ANTON W.
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appeal 2006-2252
Application 10/397,012

This appeal involves claims 1 to 31, the only claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2002).
The claims are directed to an apparatus for continually monitoring a
plurality of Global Positioning System satellites in space. Claim 1 is
illustrative:
1. An apparatus for continuously monitoring a plurality of Global
Positioning System (GPS) satellites in space, comprising:
a plurality of GPS receivers respectively on-board said plurality
of GPS satellites for continuously monitoring and receiving navigation
signals from said plurality of GPS satellites in view of the plurality of GPS
receivers; and
means for determining a range to said each GPS satellite in
view of said plurality of GPS receivers using the navigation signals.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Brodie US 6,009,376 Dec. 28, 1999
Green US 6,667,713 B2 Dec. 23, 2003
Murphy US 6,674,398 B2 Jan. 06, 2004

2
Appeal 2006-2252
Application 10/397,012

The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 1 to 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Brodie
2. Claims 1 to 3, 6, 7, 10, 14 to 16, 18, 19, 21 to 23, 25 and 26 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Murphy.
3. Claims 5, 9, 20 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Murphy in view of Green.
4. Claims 4, 8, 11 to 13, 17, 24 and 28 to 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Murphy in view of Brodie.
5. Claims 4, 8, 11 to 13, 17, 24 and 28 to 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Green in view of Brodie.1

The Appellants contend that neither Brodie nor Murphy discloses a
Global Positioning System (“GPS”) and that Brodie does not disclose a GPS
having a receiver that receives its own navigation signal such that said signal
can be canceled by using the GPS receiver’s signal processor.

1 The examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1 to 3, 5 to 7, 9, 10,
14 to 16, 18, 19, 21 to 23, 25 and 26, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Green (Answer 10).
3
Appeal 2006-2252
Application 10/397,012

ISSUES
The first issue is whether the Appellants have shown that the
Examiner erred in finding that Brodie and Murphy discloses a GPS.
The second issue is whether the Appellants have shown that the
Examiner erred in finding that Brodie discloses a GPS having a receiver
which receives its own navigation signal such that the navigational signal
can be cancelled by using the GPS receiver’s signal processor.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Appellants invented an apparatus for continuously monitoring a
plurality of GPS satellites from space rather than from the ground
(Specification page 2). The apparatus includes a plurality of GPS receivers
on the plurality of GPS satellites (Specification p. 2). The appealed claims
do not recite whether the GPS satellites receive and transmit L-band signals
or UHF signals. Each satellite receiver continuously monitors and receives
navigation signals from the plurality of GPS satellites (Specification p. 2).
The Appellants’ invention eliminates the need for all ground monitor
stations outside the continental United States (Specification p. 2).
Each GPS receiver receives navigation signals from its own satellite
and all other GPS satellites in view. The host satellite signal is then
cancelled (Specification p. 2 to 3). The system also includes a Kalman filter
4
Appeal 2006-2252
Application 10/397,012

on one or more GPS satellites. The Kalman filter calculates the ephemeris
data and clock error data (Specification p. 7).
Brodie discloses an apparatus for continuously monitoring a plurality
of satellites from space (col. 1, ll. 11 to 16). The apparatus includes a
plurality of GPS receivers on the plurality of GPS satellites (col. 4, ll. 30 to
46). A broadcast period is defined and each satellite broadcasts during the
assigned portion of that period. The GPS receivers continuously monitor
and receive navigation signals from the plurality of GPS satellites and
identifiy the broadcasting satellite by noting the time of broadcast (col. 4, ll.
40 to 42). The system also includes a Kalman filter on each GPS satellite.
The Kalman filter calculates the ephemeris data and clock error data (col 4,
ll. 22 to 29). Brodie does not disclose that the GPS receivers receive their
own navigation signals such that the navigation signal can be cancelled by
using the GPS receiver’s signal processor.
The GPS satellites disclosed in Brodie are a new generation of GPS
satellites referred to as GPS block IIR satellites which employ a special
transponder unit which is designed to transmit ultra-high frequency (UHF)
signals between GPS satellites (col. 2, l. 62 to col. 3, l. 5). While the GPS
satellites in Brodie transmit and receive UHF signals the satellites are
nonetheless GPS satellites.
5
Appeal 2006-2252
Application 10/397,012

Murphy discloses a global communication, navigation, and
surveillance system (GCNS) (col, 3, ll. 3 to 9). The system includes
satellites that broadcast multiple navigation signals and can engage in two
way communications (col. 3, ll. 12 to 13). Murphy does not disclose a GPS
satellite system.
Green discloses a GPS system that includes a self-monitoring
capability in which each satellite can check the reliability of its own signal
(col. 5, ll. 29 to 55). A plurality of tests are performed on the satellite signal
and the position, velocity and time information contained therein to
determine if the signal is reliable (col. 3, ll. 55 to 58). If the signal is
unreliable, a warning signal is sent as part of the next update of the satellite
signal so that users can reject the satellite signal (col. 3, ll 59 to 62). Green
does not disclose that each receiver receives its own navigation signal and
cancels its signal using the GPS receiver’s signal processor.

ANALYSIS/CONCLUSION
As we find that Brodie discloses each and every element of claim 1,
and a GPS in particular, we will sustain the rejection as it is directed to claim
1. We will also sustain this rejection as it is directed to claims 14 and 28
because even though Appellants contend that Brodie does not disclose that
6
Appeal 2006-2252
Application 10/397,012

the GPS receivers are L-band receivers, neither claim 14 nor claim 28 recite
L-band receivers. We will also sustain the rejection as it is directed to
claims 2 to 4, 6 to 8, 10, 11, 14 to 19, 21 to 26, and 28 to 31 because the
Appellants have not argued the separate patentability of these claims with
any specificity. 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(vii).
We will not sustain this rejection as it is directed to claims 5, 9, 12,
13, 20, and 27 because Brodie does not disclose that the satellite’s own
navigation signal can be cancelled by the GPS receiver’s signal processor.
We will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 to 3, 6, 7, 10,
14 to 16, 18, 19, 21 to 23, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Murphy because Murphy does not disclose a GPS system.
We will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 9, 20, and 27 under
25 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy in view of Green for the
same reason.
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 8, 11 to 13, 17,
24, and 28 to 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
combined teachings of Murphy and Brodie and the rejection of claims 4, 8,
11 to 13, 17, 24, and 28 to 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the combined teachings of Green and Brodie because it is our view that
7
Appeal 2006-2252
Application 10/397,012

Brodie alone teaches the subject matter of these claims. Therefore, the
disclosures of Green and Murphy are superfluous.
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)(2006).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

jlb

Gates & Cooper LLP
Howard Hughes Center
6701 Center Drive West, Suite 1050
Los Angeles, CA 90045

8