Appeal No. 95-4386
Application 08/127,139
specification, and Rogoff.
Rather than repeat the positions of appellants and the examiner, reference is made to the Briefs
and the Answer for the respective details thereof.6
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this appeal, we have carefully considered
appellants’ specification and claims, the applied references and admitted prior art, and the respective
viewpoints of appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review of the record before us,
we find that Suzuki, as well as the other applied prior art, fails to teach or suggest the feature of
representative claim 16 on appeal of recalling and displaying selected past underwater conditions and
underwater transient objects associated with past ship track points. Accordingly, we will reverse the
examiner’s decisions rejecting independent claims 4 to 9 and 11 to 45 on appeal as being obvious
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants argue that Suzuki and Nagao fail to teach or suggest storing past underlying transient
object data and past underwater condition data (Brief, pages 17 and 21; Reply, pages 5, 6, 8, and 9).
The examiner agrees (Answer, page 5), as do we. The examiner alleges (Answer, page 5) that such a
6We note that the Reply Brief has been "entered and considered" as per the June 28, 1995, communication
from the examiner. We also note that the after final amendments of September 6, 1994, and of February 1, 1995,
making minor corrections to claims 16 and 18 have been entered by the examiner.
-5-5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007