Appeal No. 2002-0604 Page 5
Application No. 09/240,926
227 USPQ 972, 973 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985). To this end, the requisite motivation
must stem from some teaching, suggestion or inference in the prior art as a whole or
from the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art and not from
the appellant's disclosure. See, for example, Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp.,
837 F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1439 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825
(1988).
Claims 6, 8-14, 17-23, 26-28 and 32-37 have been rejected as being
unpatentable over Neumann. With regard to independent claims 6, 13 and 22, it is the
examiner’s position that all of the subject matter recited therein is disclosed in
Neumann, except for the requirement that bearing information be computed and
displayed. However, the examiner is of the opinion that because Neumann “can
display” position, velocity or angular distance data, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art that the Neumann system “inherently computes and displays
bearing information” (Answer, page 4). The appellant disputes this finding, on the basis
that any bearing information provided is obtained by the human user using an optical
system, rather than by the “computational circuitry” required by claims 6 and 13, and
the “instruction means for computing a bearing” in claim 22. We agree.
Neumann explains in lines 1-9 of column 3 that distances can be measured to
remote objects by means of a sighting scope which can be used to provide precise
angular measurement from two points along a baseline. After the length of the baseline
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007