Appeal No. 2002-1753
Application No. 09/243,451
Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of claims 8, 10 and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§103.
Appellants argue, with regard to claims 9 and 11, that these claims are specific
to the idea of having a graphic display in which there is a discrete indication for each
space monitored in the facility and that the examiner has ignored this limitation.
The examiner’s only response, at page 8 of the answer, is to point to graphic
monitor 4 of Becker as having a “discrete indication as graphics windows 26 which is an
interactive field that holds a selected graphic display such as building profile, floor
plans, zone plans, and facility overview.” The examiner concludes that the display of
Becker “can be used to display both location information and information regarding
relative numbers of availability and unavailable monitored space in the parking facility”
(emphasis added).
Again, merely because something “can” be used is not an indication of
obviousness unless it can be shown that something in the prior art or in the experience
of a skilled artisan would have suggested its use in the environment sought to be
modified. In the instant case, the examiner has not convinced us of any reason for the
artisan to have taken the teaching of Becker’s graphic monitor showing floor plans, etc.
and adapt the parking management system of Jackson with it to somehow include a
“discrete indication for each monitored space in said facility, said graphic information
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007