Appeal No. 2003-0020
Application No. 09/631,060
expense of reloading the object that is erroneously delivered to
the wrong destination. Appellant argues that neither Theimer nor
Turner discloses or suggests the interrogator being mounted
adjacent an unloading or loading aperture of a vehicle.
It is the examiner’s position that “Turner does in fact show
the interrogators 21 being mounted adjacent the apertures”
(answer-page 5).
While these interrogators, or field cancellation antennae,
of Turner are mounted adjacent ingress and egress of a luggage
monitoring apparatus, they are not mounted adjacent a loading or
unloading aperture of a vehicle, as claimed. Further, other than
appellant’s own disclosure, we do not know what, in the teachings
of Theimer and Turner, would have suggested to the artisan to
place an interrogator at a loading or unloading aperture of a
vehicle in order to signal if an object is being erroneously
loaded or unloaded to the wrong destination. The examiner does
not explain how the artisan would have gleaned anything from the
placement of the field cancellation antennae in Turner that would
have suggested the placement of an interrogator at the loading or
unloading apertures of a vehicle.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 2,
3, 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
-10–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007