Appeal No. 2002-0086 Page 5
Application No. 09/053,880
Here, claim 1 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: "[a]n improved
transportation scheduling method for scheduling a plurality of trips T1-Tn, using a
plurality of vehicles V1-Vn, each of said plurality of vehicles having a trip manifest, said
method comprising . . . determining a best insertion pair into said trip manifest of said
best vehicle for said best trip and updating said trip manifest to include said best
insertion pair. . . ." The appellant's specification defines the "trip manifest" as follows.
"A manifest is an ordered sequence of stop events. Each event has an associated
location (either pickup or dropoff) and an assigned time." (Spec. at 1.) Reading "trip
manifest" in light of the specification, the limitations require dynamically updating a
vehicle's trip manifest, i.e., its schedule of pickups or dropoffs, in response to the
scheduling of an individual trip.
"Having construed the claim limitations at issue, we now compare the claims to
the prior art to determine if the prior art anticipates those claims." In re Cruciferous
Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2002). "A claim
is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either
expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros., Inc.
v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing
Structural Rubber Prods. Co. v. Park Rubber Co., 749 F.2d 707, 715, 223 USPQ 1264,
1270 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007