Appeal No. 95-4386
Application 08/127,139
feature would have been obvious since both Suzuki and Nagao store and display past ship track
positions. Our careful review of Suzuki, Nagao, the admitted prior art, and
Rogoff fails to reveal any motivation or suggestion to store or display past underlying transient objects
and/or past underwater conditions. Suzuki operates on past and present ship track data and present
underlying transient objects and/or underwater conditions, but does not operate on past underlying
transient objects and/or past underwater conditions. Nagao stores and displays past ship track
positions, but does not operate on past underlying transient objects and/or past underwater conditions.
The examiner has also failed to cite any persuasive motivation for storing or displaying past
underlying transient objects and/or past underwater conditions, other than to say that such would have
been obvious because it would have been useful in finding fish or because historical information is
generally useful (Answer, page 5). We agree with appellants (Brief, pages 18 to 20 and 21; Reply,
pages 6 and 10) that there would have been no motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to store or
display past underlying transient objects and/or past underwater conditions and that to have done so
would have involved the use of hindsight.
The primary purpose of appellants’ disclosed invention is to find fish using past underlying
transient objects and/or past underwater conditions, data previously not used in the prior art when
attempting to find fish. Appellants attempt to overcome the difficulties with the prior art by storing and
-6-6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007