Appeal No. 1999-0172
Application 08/334,733
of either Mansell or Bickley in the manner proposed by the
examiner, the result would not meet numerous limitations in
these claims.
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 10 and 27, or of claims 2, 3,
5 through 7 and 28 through 31 which depend therefrom, as being
unpatentable over Alesio in view of Mansell or Bickley.
On the other hand, Rudnicki, Burns and Welles all involve
systems of the sort recited in claim 1 for determining
locations of items (e.g., trains, freight cars, shipping
containers) which reasonably constitute “freight containers.”
The examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to
provide these systems with the error correction features
recited in claim 1 finds ample support in the increased
accuracy benefits suggested by Mansell or Bickley. Moreover,
although the Rudnicki, Burns and Welles systems do not pertain
a freight yard, claim 1 does not recite the freight yard as a
positive element of the claimed system. Thus, the appellants’
arguments with respect to these particular reference
17
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007