Appeal No. 2002-1785
Application No. 09/239,338 Page 6
Appellants assert (brief, page 5) that Christ fails to teach
or suggest the associating and displaying steps of claim 1. It
is argued (brief, page 6) that in Christ, it does not matter what
the subject matter expertise of the individual might be, and
(brief, page 8) that there is no teaching or suggestion in Christ
to modify the system to track personnel with a given expertise,
because in Christ, emergency is relevant whereas expertise is
irrelevant. Appellants further assert (id.) that the examiner is
using appellants' own teachings as a blueprint for the rejection,
which is impermissible hindsight.
From our review of Christ, we find that Christ is directed
to a personal security system employing a locating and tracking
device (col. 1, lines 12-14). Christ discloses that security
personnel often place their lives at risk merely by showing up
for work, and that individuals are unable to notify the main
control center that they are in trouble or where they are when
trouble arises. Christ discloses that many organizations would
benefit from the ability to continuously locate the position of
individuals as they move about a facility, such correctional
facilities, hospitals, nuclear power plants, and amusement parks,
as the frequency of violent crime increases (col. 1, lines 15-
32). Christ solves this problem by providing a system of sensors
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007