Appeal No. 2006-3323
Application No. 10/287,151
It is our view that one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the present invention would have readily found that
Schmier’s does not amount to the invention as recited in
representative claim 1. Particularly, the ordinarily skilled
artisan would have duly recognized that Schmier’s teaching is
limited to predicting a discrete time-of-arrival of public vehicles
at a particular destination without actually specifying a time
interval during which the vehicle is likely to arrive. Further,
the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been readily apprised of
the fact that Schmier’s notification of a time-of-arrival of a
public vehicle at a particular station is devoid of any indication
of a degree of confidence that the vehicle will actually arrive at
the destination within a particular time interval. Additionally,
the ordinarily skilled artisan would have duly recognized that even
though Schmier teaches that the vehicle location signal originates
from the vehicle in transit, it does not teach that the estimated
time-of-arrival of the vehicle is sent back to the communication
device with the user in transit where the location signal
originates. Rather, Schmier teaches that the predicted time-of-
arrival is sent to a prospective passenger, not yet in transit,
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007