Appeal No. 1998-1341
Application 08/358,792
determining the position of the tracking station, as Angeloni teaches that the tracking
stations are stationary. Thus, we find that Angeloni does not teach or suggest determining
the position of the stations or that the bearing and position information are transmitted.
We find that Fraughton teaches a collision avoidance system where each aircraft
contains a transmitter and receiver. Each aircraft also contains a GPS unit to determine
the aircraft’s position and encodes this position in its transmission. Each aircraft receives
the position encoded transmissions from other aircraft and tracks the positions of the other
aircraft. See abstract. We find that Fraughton teaches transmitting the aircraft position but
does not teach that the bearing of other aircraft is transmitted.
We disagree with the Examiner’s assertion regarding Reagan on page 5 of the
answer, stating that “transmitting position and bearing data from one station to a
processing station would have been an obvious technique to one of ordinary skill in the
art.” The Examiner has provided no evidence supporting this assertion. We are not
inclined to dispense with proof by evidence when the proposition at issue is not
supported by a teaching in a prior art reference or shown to be common knowledge of
unquestionable demonstration. Our reviewing court requires this evidence in order to
establish a prima facie case. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785,
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007