Appeal No. 2003-1402
Application No. 09/034,969
As appellant notes (Brief at 18), the rejection does not address the specific
requirements of claim 27. The rejection (Answer at 9-10) apparently refers to Bustos as
teaching a “quick-serve restaurant,” which is language appearing in claim 27. The
claim, however, requires more than a “quick-serve restaurant,” and the rejection does
not show where all the limitations are disclosed or suggested by the references.
Apparently, the rejection relies on the erroneous findings with respect to the disclosure
of Smith, as applied against claims 1, 25, 26, and 30-32, that we have addressed
supra.
We thus do not sustain the rejection of claims 11-13, 16, 27, 28, and 29 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Smith and Bustos.
Section 103 rejection of claims 20, 22-24, and 33 as being unpatentable over
Smith and Theimer
In addition to the above-described deficiencies in Smith as applied against the
instant claims, we agree with appellant (Brief at 19) that the rejection fails to identify
sufficient motivation to modify the fueling environment of Smith with the freight tracking
system of Theimer. In particular, the rejection does not show any suggestion in the
references for tracking the position of articles (e.g., automobiles) or persons relative to
the battery charging, or refueling, systems described by Smith.
We thus do not sustain the rejection of claims 20, 22-24, and 33 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Smith and Theimer.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007