Appeal Number: 2006-1574
Application Number: 09/903,177
Claims 24-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Walkey in view of
Pollock. [See footnote 4 above]
Claims 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Minnesota in view of
Walkey. [See footnote 4 above]
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Minnesota in view of
Walkey and further in view of Pollock. [See footnote 4 above]
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to appellant’s
specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations that follow.
Claims 1, 22 and 36 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Minnesota.
We note that the appellant argues these claims as a group. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as
representative of the group. Minnesota describes the use of vehicle distance traveled to add a
mileage tax to a gas pump total.
The appellant argues that the claim limitation “vehicle specific data” means data that
identifies what particular category the particular vehicle is in. The appellant argues that this
definition precludes a measurement of distance traveled from being an embodiment. [See Brief
at p. 14-16].
The examiner argues that the specification provides many examples of vehicle specific data
implying wide latitude in the interpretation. The examiner goes on to argue that the limitation is
not so narrow as to be confined to that based on the type of vehicle. [See Answer at p. 5-9].
The appellant responds with an extensive analysis of the dictionary definition of the word
“specific.” [See Reply Brief at p. 2-8].
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007