Appeal No. 2002-0086 Page 7
Application No. 09/053,880
with the appellants that "[j]ust like applicant cannot call United Airlines and purchase a
ticket from an arbitrary point A to an arbitrary point B at a certain time, the O'Brien
invention cannot and does not allow a user (the passenger) to dictate the time and
destination of an airplane. In other words, the trip manifest for O'Brien is fixed by the
transportation provider. . . ." (Reply Br. at 2.)
The absence from the reference of dynamically updating a vehicle's tip manifest
in response to the scheduling of an individual trip negates anticipation. Therefore, we
reverse the anticipation rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13,
which depend therefrom.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 3, 5, 8, 11, and 14
"In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. Section 103, the examiner bears the initial
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). "'A prima facie case of obviousness is
established when the teachings from the prior art itself would . . . have suggested the
claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781,
783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048,
1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007