Appeal No. 2004-2198
Application No. 10/047,925
bottom of page 4 of the answer that representative method claim 1 does
not specify what type of trace is received to define a closed geographical
area. The claim merely recites that it is received. The software of the
CACI Limited Home Page clearly receives a map-trace of a closed
geographical area. We therefore agree with the examiner’s further analysis
that any input that delineates a closed geographical area meets the
claimed trace. The back-and-forth arguments regarding the reference’s
use of the terms “bricks” is not persuasive of patentability since the
examiner’s position is bottomed upon the view that bricks in the
reference as discussed at page 5 of the reference merely identify structures
within a given territory.
Based upon our understanding of the reference and the analysis of
it we present here, appellant’s arguments in the reply brief urging
patentability of representative independent claim 1 are clearly
unpersuasive. The nature of the positions presented here end up
presenting arguments about arguments rather than focusing on the issue
of whether the reference anticipates the subject matter of the claims.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007