Ex Parte Rudow et al - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2003-0628                                                        
          Application No. 09/860,493                                 Page 2           


                    13. A golf cart for use in a golf course yardage and              
               information system comprising:                                         
                    a golf cart body,                                                 
                    a roof mounted to said golf cart body,                            
                    said foof having an underside,                                    
                    a display monitor for displaying golf course                      
               information selected from information including golf course            
               features, yardage between golf course features and course              
               management information, said display monitor mounted on the            
               underside of said roof,                                                
                    said roof mounted to said golf cart body so as to                 
               provide a structure which is open to an environment                    
               surrounding said golf cart, said roof providing shade for              
               said display monitor.                                                  
               The prior art references of record relied upon by the                  
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                              
          Dillon                        4,818,010           Apr. 04, 1989             
          Bonito et al. (Bonito)        5,095,430           Mar. 10, 1992             
               Claims 13-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as                
          being unpatentable over Bonito in view of Dillon.                           
               We refer to the answer for the examiner's reasoning in                 
          support of the rejection, and to the briefs for the appellants'             
          arguments thereagainst.                                                     
                                       OPINION                                        
               We have carefully reviewed each of appellants’ arguments for           
          patentability.  However, we concur with the examiner that the               
          claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary           
          skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of           








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007