Appeal No. 2003-0768
Application No. 09/396,287
related to all of the containers, the clients, through their respective client computers can
determine location information and cargo listings only for the containers for which the
clients are designated” (principal brief-page 19).
The examiner counters that column 16, line 65 through column 17, line 3, of
Kovarik discloses such a limitation. However, when we review that cited portion of
Kovarik, we agree with appellants that the examiner is referring to some “abstruse
language of Kovarik” which does not appear to disclose the simple concept of each
client computer determining location information for its own cargo listings. Kovarik
merely refers to a tracking engine means that provides a set of generic object models.
It is not clear how this disclosure is one of a client “being associated with designated of
said plurality of containers and not all of said plurality of containers” or where a client
can access information from a database to determine container location intelligence and
a respective listing of cargo for each of a plurality of clients only for said containers
designated as being associated with each particular client, as claimed. Bush does not
appear to remedy this deficiency of Kovarik.
Since the examiner clearly has not established a prima facie case of obviousness
with regard to claims 34-37, we also will not sustain the rejection of these claims under
35 U.S.C. §103.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007