Appeal No. 1996-3495
Application No. 08/321,941
Eberwine 5,392,052 Feb. 21,
1995
(filed Apr. 28, 1993)
Claims 9 through 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) as being anticipated by Eberwine, and claims 1 through
8 and 12 through 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Eberwine in view of Durboraw.
All of the appealed claims recite that the module
containing the GPS receiver is “miniaturized.” Claim 9
additionally recites that the module is “readily concealable.”
With regard to the
§ 102(e) rejection, appellant contends that the limitation
concerning miniaturization of the module “is nowhere to be
found in Eberwine” (reply brief, page 1). Appellant also
argues that Eberwine does not disclose a locating unit that is
portable.
Before addressing the examiner’s rejections based upon
the prior art, it is an essential prerequisite that the
claimed subject matter be fully understood. Analysis of
whether a claim is patentable over the prior art under 35
U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 begins with a determination of the scope
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007