Appeal No. 2003-0768
Application No. 09/396,287
transport to different delivery locations by various types of transports over various
routes. This is why the examiner is having trouble finding the production of a second list
and the selectivity of materials to produce a manifest in Kovarik. It is simply not there.
If there is some way that the claim language can reasonably be interpreted as being
taught by Kovarik, the examiner has clearly not discovered it.
Merely because Kovarik’s system is customizable by a user, this does not
translate into altering the Kovarik’s system to meet the instant claimed subject matter,
without some specific teaching of doing so. Moreover, even if it would have been
obvious to do this, in view of the customization taught by Kovarik, and we do not believe
that it would have been, the rejection is under 35 U.S.C. §102 (e), so a proper rejection
requires that each and every claimed element be taught, either expressly or inherently,
by the prior art reference.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 14, 17, 22, 27, 29, 30 and
33 under 35 U.S.C. §102 (e).
We also will not sustain the rejection of claims 15, 16, 18-21 and 23-26 under 35
U.S.C. §103 because these rejections rely on an alleged teaching by Kovarik which, for
the reasons, supra, are simply not there. The secondary references to Wojcik and Sims
do not supply the deficiencies of Kovarik.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007