Appeal No. 2005-2657 Page 19
Application No. 09/898,497
Appellants' position (brief, page 5) is that the two
references are not from an analogous art, and are not properly
combinable. It is further asserted (id.) that even if the
references could be properly combined, the combination would not
teach the claimed invention because Jones does not cure the
deficiencies of Owensby.
From our review of Jones we agree with the examiner, for the
reasons set forth in the answer, that an artisan would have
considered it obvious to determine location of the cell phone
(MU) using latitude and longitude, instead of within a
predetermined cell or a sector within a predetermined cell, as
disclosed by Owensby (paragraph 45). Note that Owensby (para.
45) also discusses, in the case of GMPCS, using geo-positioning
via a GPS satellite.
As to appellants’ assertion that the references are not
analogous art, we note that two criteria have evolved for
determining whether prior art is analogous: (1) whether the art
is from the same field of endeavor, and (2) if the reference is
not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the
reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem
with which the inventor is involved. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656,
658-59, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re
Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442, 230 USPQ 313, 315 (Fed. Cir. 1986);
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007