Appeal No. 2003-1631
Application No. 09/451,332
associating, with the data processing system, said second
carrier with said supplier goods by comparing at least one of
said characteristics of said supplier goods contained in said
first transmission with at least one of said characteristics of
said second carrier contained in said third transmission; and
determining, with the data processing system, a second
estimated time of arrival from a route plan and the third
transmission, said second estimated time of arrival being an
updated estimated time of arrival of said supplier goods to said
final destination.
The Examiner relies on the following reference in rejecting
the claims:
Bush 5,835,377 Nov. 10, 1998
Claims 8-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bush.
We make reference to the answer (Paper No. 16, mailed
January 13, 2003) for the Examiner’s reasoning in support of the
rejection, and to the appeal brief (Paper No. 15, filed January
3, 2003) and the reply brief (Paper No. 17, filed March 12, 2003)
for Appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Appellants recognize that Bush discloses a method for
optimized material movement in a computer manufacturing system
using global positioning system (GPS) and a tracking module which
is built into each shipment container (brief, page 6). However,
Appellants dispute the Examiner’s reliance upon Bush for
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007