Appeal No. 2005-2657 Page 18
Application No. 09/898,497
Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed.
Cir. 1985); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d
1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). These showings
by the examiner are an essential part of complying with the
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Note In
re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or
evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the
evidence as a whole. See id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039,
228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
The examiner’s position (final rejection, page 5) is that
Owensby does not explicitly disclose alternative methods of
determining the geographic location of the mobile unit. To
overcome this deficiency of Owensby, the examiner turns to Jones
for a teaching of:
the use of detecting the geographic location of a
mobile telecommunications unit by [claim 3] longitude
and latitude (see column 17, lines 8-10) and [claim 5]
Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) numbers (see column
17,lines 8-10).
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007