Appeal No. 2002-0086 Page 4
Application No. 09/053,880
OPINION
Our opinion addresses the rejections in the following order:
• anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13
• obviousness rejection of claims 3, 5, 8, 11, and 14.
Anticipation Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellant in toto, we
address a point of contention therebetween. The examiner asserts, "O'Brien clearly
states that trips are re-allocated until an optimum travel scheme is determined (See
Col. 11, lines 3-9)." (Examiner's Answer at 6.) The appellant argues, "[i]n the O'Brien
patent, there is absolutely no teaching that the vehicle may have its routing changed.
Thus, the O'Brien patent cannot teach the step of 'updating said trip manifest'." (Appeal
Br. at 7.)
"Analysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the invention claimed?"
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). "Claims are not interpreted in a vacuum, but are part of and are read in light
of the specification." Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kinkead Indus., Inc., 810 F.2d 1113, 1116, 1
USPQ2d 1563, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Anti-bodies,
Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1385, 231 USPQ 81, 94-95 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Mattison, 509
F.2d 563, 565, 184 USPQ 484, 486 (CCPA 1975)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007