Appeal No. 2005-0045 Page 7
Application No. 09/801,093
desirability, and thus the obviousness, of making the combination. See In re Beattie,
974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. American Hoist and Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1462, 221
USPQ 481, 488 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The appellants argue that there is no motivation to combine the teachings of Hall
with the teachings of Hendrey. The appellants reason that there are significant
differences between Hall and Hendrey. First, Hall has one mobile party and on
stationary party and Hendrey has a number of mobile units. Second, Hall provides for
scheduling so that an order from the mobile customer is processed by the time the
mobile customer arrives at the local facility and Hendrey provides a telecommunication
link between two mobile units based on the location of the user. The appellants further
reasons that Hall does not suggest or provide for movement of the local facility.
We agree with the appellants and thus we will not sustain this rejection as it is
directed to claim 7. We will likewise not sustain this rejection as it is directed to claims 2
to 4 and 6 as each of these claims are dependent on claim 1.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Hall in view of Hendrey. As this rejection is based on the
combination of Hall and Hendrey, we will not sustain this rejection for the same reasons
discussed above regarding the rejection of claims 2 to 4, 6 and 7.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007