Appeal No. 2004-2037
Application No. 09/769,291
onto said transport." Merely being located on the plane is not
enough. While this limitation might be obvious in the extreme
over routine practices in the art, the Examiner has not discussed
such in their rejection. For example, adding art that teaches
safety is improved by docking portable items when on moving
vehicles.
Appellants also argue, "there simply is no motivation
provided in [the references] for combining [the] references as
suggested in the Office Action." We agree. Without a linking
reference that shows the desirability of connecting portable
devices into networks for data downloading and uploading, we find
that there is no suggestion in the references for combining them.
For an example of a reference that bridges the gap between the
Bobowicz and Diamond references, the Examiner should see Hanson
et al. U.S. Patent 6,546,425 which mentions using his network
system in the trucking and freight industry. We note that the
problem with using only the Bobowicz and Diamond references
arises due to the date of the Bobowicz reference which is
relatively early in the widespread deployment of network
architectures. Thus, the Bobowicz reference lacks discussion of
many data communication features that would be considered routine
at the time of filing of Appellants' patent application.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007