Appeal No. 2002-0604 Page 4
Application No. 09/240,926
with Neumann, and therefore the rejection of claim 3 as being anticipated by Neumann
cannot be sustained.
We arrive at this conclusion because Neumann does not disclose a “mobile
telephone,” the common definition of which is a device that converts sound waves to
electrical impulses for transmission.2 Neumann is directed to a system for surveying
which utilizes an inertial sensor carried by the surveyor to determine the surveyor’s
position with respect to a reference point. While, as the examiner has pointed out, the
Neumann device includes a GPS interface that transmits and receives data, there is no
teaching in the reference that this data is in the form of sound waves, much less that
the apparatus converts sound waves to electrical impulses for transmission. Moreover,
the reference does not give any indication, nor would there be any reason for, voice or
sound wave communication in the course of operating the system.
The Rejection Under Section 103
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See, for example, In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). In establishing a prima facie
case of obviousness, it is incumbent upon the examiner to provide a reason why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify a prior art reference or to
combine reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. See Ex parte Clapp,
2See, for example, Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1973, page 1198.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007