Appeal No. 1996-3495
Application No. 08/321,941
transported.” According to the same dictionary source, the
word “mobile” merely means “capable of moving or being moved
from one place to another.” The terms “portable” and “mobile”
therefore are not synonymous.
Based on the foregoing analysis of the Eberwine patent,
we cannot agree that this reference expressly or inherently
discloses each and every element of appealed claim 9.
Accordingly, Eberwine does not anticipate the subject matter
of claim 9 and, hence, the subject matter of claims 10 and 11,
which depend from claim 9. We therefore must reverse the §
102(e) rejection of claims 9 through 11. See In re Schreiber,
128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997), In
re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed.
Cir. 1994), and RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems,
Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
(For a reference to be properly anticipatory, each and every
element of the rejected claim must be found either expressly
or inherently in the applied reference.).
With regard to the § 103 rejection, the examiner
concludes that the teachings of Durboraw would have made it
obvious to package Eberwine’s position determination and
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007