Appeal No. 2005-2618
Application No. 10/060,494
Claim 1 requires at least one light emitter associated with
the data card to visually convey information directly to a human
operator. What a reference teaches is a question of fact. In re
Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 382, 29 USPQ2d 1550, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
(citing In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1311, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1041
(Fed. Cir. 1992)). Here, the Examiner has not pointed to any
teaching in Bonora that would have conclusively established that
the data card 232-1, other than communicating with the
communication means 236, visually conveys any information
directly to an operator. In fact, the proximity of the data card
to the tracking unit on the equipment, indicates that the
communication was not intended to be with the operator.
In view of the discussion above, we find that Bonora fails
to teach every recited limitation recited and therefore, cannot
anticipate claim 1. Claims 7 and 11 include similar limitations
related to visually conveying information directly to a human
operator which, as discussed above with respect to claim 1, is
absent in Bonora. Accordingly, as the Examiner has failed to set
forth a prima facie case of anticipation, the 35 U.S.C. § 102
rejection of independent claims 1, 7 and 11 as well as claims
2-6, 8-10, 12 and 13, dependent thereon, over Bonora cannot be
sustained.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007