Appeal No. 1999-0526
Application No. 08/581,937
intervals throughout the itinerary of the mobile object, wherein each successive itinerary
data point includes a successive position computed by the navigation receiver and a time
of day corresponding to that position” as set forth in the language of claim 1.
“To reject claims in an application under section 103, an examiner must show an
unrebutted prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552, 1557, 34
USPQ2d 1210, 1214 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In the absence of a proper prima facie case of
obviousness, an applicant who complies with the other statutory requirements is entitled to
a patent. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection by showing
insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with
evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.” In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355,
47 USPQ2d 1453, 1455 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Here, we find that appellants have overcome
the prima facie case of obviousness by showing insufficient evidence by the examiner of
obviousness. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1 nor its dependent
claims 2-4.
Throughout appellants’ briefs appellants argue that the prior art does not teach or
suggest the language of claim 1 with respect to “storing in the memory a plurality of
successive itinerary data points at intervals throughout the itinerary of the mobile object,
wherein each successive itinerary data point includes a successive position computed by
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007