Appeal No. 1998-1341
Application 08/358,792
Opinion
After careful consideration of evidence before us, we disagree with the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 3 through 7, 10 through 11, 14 through 34 and 36 through 38 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
We first consider the rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14 through 18, 20, 22, 24,
25, 28 through 34 and 36 through 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Reagan, Fraughton and Angeloni. It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one
having ordinary skill in the art would have been lead to the claimed invention by the express
teachings or suggestions found in the prior art or by the implication contained in such
teachings or suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989,995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir.
1983). “Additionally, when determining obviousness, the claimed invention should be
considered as a whole; there is no legally recognizable ‘heart’ of the invention. “ Para-
Ordance Mfg. V SGS Importers Int’l Inc., 73 F3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239
(Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc.v. Garlock Inc., 721 F.2d 1540,
1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984)).
On page 4 of the answer, the Examiner sets forth the rejection. The Examiner
states the Reagan discloses a vehicle tracking system where mobile tracking stations
considered and entered.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007