Appeal No. 1999-0526
Application No. 08/581,937
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Mansell. Claims 3 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Mansell in view of Landt. Claims 4, 8, 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Mansell in view of Aspell.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants’ regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 15, mailed Sep. 15, 1998) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 14, filed Aug. 10, 1998) and reply
brief (Paper No. 16, filed Nov. 23, 1998) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first determine the scope of the
claim. "[T]he name of the game is the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47
USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). We find that the examiner has not provided a
teaching or convincing line of reasoning why one skilled in the art would have desired to
perform the step of “storing in the memory a plurality of successive itinerary data points at
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007