Appeal No. 2003-1631
Application No. 09/451,332
determines an updated estimated time of arrival at the final
destination.
Based on our findings above, we agree with Appellants that
even if the part itinerary is sent by the supplier, the tracking
of the part location of Bush cannot simply be used as the
transmissions indicative of the characteristics of the first and
the second carriers, which are used for determining an estimated
time of arrival for the goods. We note that the Examiner’s
expanded analysis of the reference and the arguments in the
answer only partially support the reading of some of the claimed
features on the tracking system of Bush, but fails to correspond
the prior art to the claimed language as a whole. In that
regard, while determining the location of the goods may be
suggested, Bush specifically limits the use of such information
merely to determining alternate actions if the goods are not on
the schedule. Therefore, as the modification to the prior art
fails to teach or suggest the recited features, the Examiner has
not established a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 8-14
over Bush.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007