Appeal No. 2002-1020
Application 09/348,798
In proposing to combine Nauck and Cooper to reject claim 10,
the examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to mount
the topography-based shot tracking system described by Nauck to a
mobile cart, as suggested by Cooper. The resulting system would
provide the benefits of shot tracking, analysis, and display in a
mobile system that could be used during game play” (answer, page
4).
Even if this reference combination were made, however, it
still would not account for the particular claim 10 method steps
at issue. At best, the proposed modification of Nauck in view of
Cooper would result in a method wherein Nauck’s golf ball
tracking, analyzing and recording steps are performed each time a
ball is struck. There is nothing in the combined teachings of
these references, however, which would have suggested the
operation of Nauck’s system between an “initial location” and an
“end point” in the manner required by claim 10.
Thus, the collective disclosures of Nauck and Cooper do not
support a conclusion that the differences between the subject
matter recited in claim 10 and the prior art are such that the
subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007