Appeal No. 2003-0768
Application No. 09/396,287
With regard to claims 34-37, independent claim 34 does not include the
limitations of producing a second list from a first list and of materials being selectable
from a list of materials to produce a manifest with manifested materials for delivery to
one or more of a plurality of delivery locations. Rather, claim 34 monitors containers
having cargo therein. Each of the containers has a wireless communications transmitter
for providing container location intelligence and a respective listing of the cargo in that
container.
The examiner contends that Kovarik teaches the claimed subject matter but for
the wireless communication transmitter, and relies on Bush for such a teaching, holding
that it would have been obvious to incorporate the wireless communication transmitter
into Kovarik “because this type of technology is very beneficial for monitoring, tracking
and locating an entity. Wireless communications helps to provide current, real-time
reporting of an entity which is being monitored or tracked” (answer-page 9).
Appellants argue that neither reference discloses the feature whereby each client
could monitor its own container cargo through his/her own computer. This is said to be
claimed in the language, “any one of said plurality of clients being associated with
designated of said plurality of containers and not all of said plurality of containers.”
Specifically, appellants allege that “Although a single database holds information
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007