Ex Parte Meyers et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 24, 2014

12709657 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 24, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DAVID W. MEYERS, LAWRENCE C. VALLOT,
BRIAN SCHIPPER, and KELLY MULDOON
____________

Appeal 2012-010189
Application 12/709,6571
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
JAMES J. MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–10. Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Honeywell International
Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2012-010189
Application 12/709,657

2
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4, and 8 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for the execution of a GPS RAIM
algorithm to eliminate the time unknown of the GPS solution
and thus reducing the number of required satellite measurement
sets by one, the method comprising:
deriving position, velocity, and time solutions from a
GPS navigation system derived from a plurality of satellite
ephemerides and measurements;
receiving an atomic clock signal from one or more
atomic clocks located in the navigation system;
comparing the atomic clock signal to the derived time
solutions to derive a correction factor;
adjusting the atomic clock signal according to the
correction factor to develop an adjusted atomic clock signal;
and
using the adjusted atomic clock signal to remove the
clock unknown of the GPS RAIM solution and thus reducing
the number of required satellite measurement sets by one.

Rejection
Claims 1–10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Turney (US 5,615,236, issued Mar. 25, 1997) and
Bruckner (US 6,317,688 B1, issued Nov. 13, 2001).

ANALYSIS
Appellants’ Specification describes that RAIM (Receiver
Autonomous Integrity Monitoring) is used to assess the integrity of GPS
(Global Positioning System) signals in a GPS receiver system. Spec. ¶ 2. In
particular, RAIM detects faults by utilizing redundant GPS pseudorange
measurements (i.e., measurements from more satellites than are needed to
Appeal 2012-010189
Application 12/709,657

3
produce a position fix) to determine whether all of the extra pseudoranges
are consistent with the computed position. Id. ¶ 3. At least four
measurements are required to obtain a three-dimensional position solution
(id. ¶ 4), and conventional RAIM availability requires six or more satellite
measurements (id. ¶ 5). Eliminating time as an unknown reduces the
required number of satellites for the basic navigation solution from four to
three, and allows RAIM Fault Detection and Exclusion (FDE) to be
achieved with only five satellites. Id.
Claims 1–3
Claim 1 is directed to a method for the execution of a GPS RAIM
algorithm to eliminate the time unknown of the GPS solution and thus
reduce the number of required satellite measurement sets (for execution of
the algorithm) by one. The claimed method requires one fewer satellite to
produce a navigation solution than does a conventional system that
implements a RAIM algorithm. Appeal Br. 6. Claim 1 recites, inter alia,
“adjusting the atomic clock signal according to the correction factor to
develop an adjusted atomic clock signal,” and “using the adjusted atomic
clock signal to remove the clock unknown of the GPS RAIM solution and
thus reduc[e] the number of required satellite measurements sets by one.”
Id. at 10, Claims App.
The Examiner finds that Turney discloses adjusting a clock signal
based on a correction factor, and using the adjusted clock signal to enhance
the position estimate of the true current GPS time. Answer 4 (citing Turney,
col. 4, ll. 6–8). The Examiner finds that Bruckner discloses a GPS RAIM
Appeal 2012-010189
Application 12/709,657

4
algorithm using a GPS/IMU solution2 “to reduce (or without) the use of the
number of required satellites.” Id. (citing Bruckner, col. 6, ll. 52–55). The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to incorporate the
teaching of Bruckner’s system in Turney to have a GPS RAIM algorithm to
enable the system to reduce the number of required satellites for positional
information. Id. at 5.
Turney discloses a method for re-acquiring P-code transmitted by
satellites in a GPS receiver. See Turney, Abstract. Turney discloses satellite
receiver 10 including clock 40, which receives periodic synchronizing data
related to GPS satellite system time from processor 24. Id. at col. 3, ll. 51–
54; Fig. 1. Clock 40 maintains a running estimate of GPS time, and clock
drift errors are corrected with the synchronizing data. Id. at col. 3, ll. 55–58.
If P-code tracking is briefly lost by satellite receiver 10, to re-acquire it,
Turney determines the drift of clock 40 by comparing it to a “more accurate
time that is conventionally intrinsic to GPS-DSPs,”3 and adjusting the last
time reading of clock 40 by a drift correction factor to produce “an enhanced
estimate of the true current global positioning system time.” Id. at col. 4, ll.
4–9. Turney does not disclose use of RAIM. See Answer 4–5.
Bruckner discloses a global navigation apparatus including a GPS
receiver to provide GPS measurement data, an inertial sensor system to
provide inertial translational and rotational data, and a navigation system
coupled to the GPS receiver and inertial sensor system. See Bruckner,
Abstract. Figure 6 depicts GPS receiver 710 and inertial sensors system 120

2 Bruckner describes an “inertial measurement unit (IMU).” See Bruckner,
col. 2, l. 17.
3 Turney describes a “digital signal processor (DSP).” See Turney, col. 3,
l. 19.
Appeal 2012-010189
Application 12/709,657

5
for providing measurement data 712 and inertial data 121, respectively, to
navigation solution apparatus 130. Id. at col. 6, ll. 40–56. Bruckner states,
“[d]uring the time periods in which inertial sensors 120 provide inertial data
121 without the use of GPS data from GPS receiver 110, the navigation
system 130 can utilize multi-GPS to form an attitude solution to produce
navigation data 131 with increased accuracy.” Id. at col. 6, ll. 52–56.
Appellants contend that the Examiner effectively ignores the
limitation of “using the adjusted atomic clock signal to remove the clock
unknown of the GPS RAIM solution and thus reducing the number of
required satellite measurements sets by one,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal
Br. 6. Appellants contend that Turney relates to re-acquiring P-code using
an atomic clock, not to use of RAIM (id. (citing Turney, col. 4, ll. 6–8)), and
Bruckner does not disclose how to implement RAIM with one fewer satellite
measurement than in conventional RAIM (id. at 7). Appellants dispute that
one skilled in the art would know how to use an adjusted atomic clock signal
to reduce the number of satellites needed for a RAIM algorithm merely
because Turney “uses an adjusted clock signal to ‘enhance a position
estimate’ (through P-code reacquisition)” and Bruckner teaches the use of
merely conventional (i.e., standard) RAIM. Id. In the Reply Brief,
Appellants contend that the Examiner does not adequately explain why it
would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Turney and Bruckner
to produce a method that operates with one less satellite than a conventional
RAIM method. Reply Br. 1–2.
Appellants’ contentions are persuasive. Appellants correctly point out
that Turney does not teach the use of RAIM. Appeal Br. 6. As discussed
above, Turney corrects a clock signal in a GPS receiver using a satellite time
Appeal 2012-010189
Application 12/709,657

6
signal (atomic clock signal), to be able to re-acquire P-code more efficiently
following a power outage, as would occur when external power is removed
or battery 36, which powers GPS receiver 10, dies or is replaced. See
Turney, col. 3, l. 64–col. 4, l. 1. The Examiner does not identify any
disclosure in Turney of using a corrected atomic clock signal, much less in a
RAIM algorithm.
As discussed above, Bruckner teaches use of a combination of GPS
and inertial sensors to provide a navigation solution. The Examiner does not
adequately explain how Bruckner’s description of providing “inertial data
121 without the use GPS data from GPS receiver 110” (col. 6, ll. 53–54)
teaches using an adjusted atomic clock signal in a GPS RAIM algorithm for
“reducing the number of required satellite measurement sets by one.”
Regarding the Examiner’s finding that Bruckner discloses “without” “the
use of the number of required satellites,” (see Answer 4) claim 1 recites that
the method reduces the number of required satellite measurement sets by
one, not that the method is performed “without” satellites.
Thus, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner does not show that
the combination of Turney and Bruckner meets each of the claimed
limitations. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or dependent
claims 2 and 3.
Claims 8–10
Claim 8 is directed to an apparatus for providing a timing signal to
reduce the number of required satellite measurements by one in execution of
a RAIM algorithm, comprising, inter alia, “a processor for executing the
RAIM algorithm based upon the adjusted atomic clock signal to eliminate
Appeal 2012-010189
Application 12/709,657

7
the time unknown of the GPS solution and thus reduce the number of
required satellites by one.”4 Appeal Br. 11, Claims App.
The Examiner finds that Bruckner discloses a RAIM algorithm
processor to receive satellite measurements and the IMU solution from the
GPS receiver to test the integrity of each satellite ephemeris. Answer 5
(citing Bruckner, col. 7, l. 47–col. 8, l. 15).
The passage in Bruckner cited by the Examiner (col. 7, l. 47–col. 8,
l. 15) describes “standard RAIM.” See Bruckner, col. 7, ll. 48–49. Bruckner
further describes that “[a] modification to the standard RAIM described
above is needed for the contribution we seek from the inertial
augmentation.” See col. 8, ll. 20–22. This modification “takes the form of
taking two components of position (horizontal) from the IMU solution, and
one component of altitude from a baro-altimeter, and feeding these three as
additional ‘measurements’ into the RAIM computation.” See Bruckner,
col. 8, ll. 22–26.
Appellants contend that Turney and Bruckner do not teach “a
processor for executing the RAIM algorithm based upon the adjusted atomic
clock signal to eliminate the time unknown of the GPS solution and thus
reduce the number of required satellites by one,” as claimed. Appeal Br. 8.
For reasons similar to those discussed above in regard to the rejection
of claim 1, Appellants’ contentions for claim 8 are persuasive. Thus, we do
not sustain the rejection of claim 8, or its dependent claims 9 and 10.

4 Although the preamble of claim 8 is directed to an “apparatus,” “the
method comprising” is recited at line 2. In addition, the preambles of claims
9 and 10, which both depend from claim 8, recite “[t]he system of Claim 8.”
In this appeal, for consistency, we treat claims 8–10 as being directed to an
“apparatus.”
Appeal 2012-010189
Application 12/709,657

8
Claims 4–7
Claim 4 recites a GPS navigation system including a RAIM processor,
comprising, inter alia, “a RAIM algorithm processor to receive the satellite
measurements and the time solutions from the GPS receiver and the
corrected clock signal to test the integrity of each of the satellite ephemeris
in the satellite ephemerides.” Appeal Br. 10–11, Claims App.
The Examiner relies on the same findings and reasoning for claim 4,
as those for claim 8 discussed above. Answer 4–5.
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with Appellants that the
Examiner does not show that the applied combination of Turney and
Bruckner includes all of the limitations of claim 4, including, inter alia, a
GPS navigation system including a RAIM algorithm processor that uses a
corrected atomic clock signal to test the integrity of each of the satellite
ephemeris in the satellite ephemerides. See Appeal Br. 8.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 4, or its dependent
claims 5–7.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–10.

REVERSED

Klh