Appeal No. 2002-1474 Page 19
Application No. 09/002,927
disclosure of radio beacons, that the use of an optical beacon
"is merely a matter of design choice and an obvious modification
to the device of Furuya in view of Liebesny.”
We are not persuaded by the examiner's assertion that the
use of an optical beacon would be an obvious matter of design
choice. The examiner has the initial burden of establishing a
prima facie case. The examiner has provided no evidence other
than an unsupported personal belief that the use of an optical
beacon would have been an obvious substitution for a radio
beacon. Accordingly, we find that the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness of claims 3, 6, 20,
and 23. The rejection of claims 3, 6, 20, and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is therefore reversed.
We turn next to claims 7, 8, 24, and 25. Appellants assert
that each of these claims recites that the receiver receives
vehicle information in the form of character data, and that the
controller displays the present position of the driver's own
vehicle in the form of characters. The examiner takes the
position (answer, page 8) that the arrow representing the vehicle
position in figures 4 and 8 (see also col, 3, lines 46-48 of
Furuya) is a character. Appellants assert (brief, page 12) that
one of ordinary skill would not interpret the claimed character
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007