Appeal No. 1998-1341
Application 08/358,792
787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Knapp-Monarch Co., 296 F.2d 230, 232, 132 USPQ 6, 8
(CCPA 1961); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 668, 148 USPQ 268, 271-72 (CCPA 1966).
Furthermore, our reviewing court states in In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 223 USPQ 785,
788 (Fed. Cir. 1984) the following:
The Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966),
focused on the procedural and evidentiary processes in reaching a
conclusion under Section 103. As adapted to ex parte procedure, Graham
is interpreted as continuing to place the "burden of proof on the Patent Office
which requires it to produce the factual basis for its rejection of an
application under section 102 and 103". Citing In re Warner, 379 F.2d
1011, 1020, 154 USPQ 173, 177 (CCPA 1967).
We next consider the rejection of independent claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Reagan, Fraughton, Angeloni and Gray. On page 9 of the
answer, the Examiner sets forth the statement of rejection, stating that Gray teaches the
tracking of plural vehicles simultaneously.
We find that the scope of independent claim 27 includes at mobile tracking unit that
determines it’s position, determines the bearing to the target and broadcasts the position
and bearing data. Furthermore, the scope includes that the data is used to
locate the target. This scope is shown in the claim 27 recitation of “at least first and a
second mobile tracking stations . . . determining the direction of origin of said radio signals
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007