Appeal No. 98-3299
Application 08/335,331
likewise reviewed Appellants’argument regarding each of these
applied references. [Brief, pages 23 to 46]. We find that
each of these references utilizes the triangulation method of
locating the position of a transceiver where the line of
bearing information from other sensor stations is needed.
None of them discloses the use of the collateral information
in conjunction with a single line of bearing to determine the
location of a transceiver as claimed here. We find that the
information from other sensor stations cannot be considered as
the collateral information. The disclosure defines the
collateral information as information from sources other than
the other sensor stations. [Pages 12 to 15]. Anticipation
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires that all elements of the
claimed invention be described in a single reference. In re
Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir.
1990). Here, none of the applied references meets the
limitations above discussed. We, therefore, reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over
Hodson or Maloney or Gray or Bunn or Kennedy. Since, the
other independent claims, namely 6, 7 and 8 and the dependent
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007