Appeal Number: 2006-2840
Application Number: 10/080,571
REJECTION
Claims 1, 3 through 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Meadows in view of Ross.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the appellant
regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the examiner's answer (mailed
October 31, 2005) for the reasoning in support of the rejection, and to appellant’s brief (filed
May 11, 2005) for the arguments thereagainst.
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, 3 through 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Meadows
in view of Ross.
We note that the appellant argues these claims as a group. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as
representative of the group.
The examiner applies Meadows to all of the claim elements, except for loading data from a
cradle. The examiner applies Ross to show the loading of data into a PDA from a cradle.
The appellant argues that the art applied fails to show a cradle which transfers coordinate
information consisting only of a first coordinate relating to the front of each of the hole greens
and a second coordinate relating to the middle of each of the hole greens [See Brief at p. 8]. The
appellant admits that it is generally true that cradles are used in transferring information to a
PDA [See Brief at p. 9]. However, the appellant argues that Ross does not apply to golf related
applications and that neither Meadows nor Ross describes relying on only data points for the
front and middle of a golf green. The appellant admits that Meadows does describe using the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007