Appeal No. 2001-0654
Application 08/910,315
Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. “[T]he Board must
not only assure that the requisite findings are made, based on
evidence of record, but must also explain the reasoning by which
the findings are deemed to support the agency’s conclusion.” In
re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir.
2002). With these principles in mind, we commence review of the
pertinent evidence and arguments of Appellants and Examiner.
We fail to find that Emery teaches predefined personal
identity information unique to the person using a transmitter and
exclusive of any identifying number and exclusive of the
transmitter location. The Examiner has directed us to column 2,
lines 16 through 49. Upon our review of this portion of the
specification, we find that Emery is teaching location ID and
telephone ID. We fail to find any teaching directed to personal
identity information as required by Appellants’ claims 1 and 8.
Furthermore, we fail to find support for the Examiner’s position
in column 7, lines 25 through 33. Emery does not teaches
personal identity information but instead teaches location ID and
transmitter ID. Upon our review of the entire disclosure of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007