Appeal Number: 2006-2840
Application Number: 10/080,571
front and middle of each green as desirable location points, but argues that Meadows teaches that
these are only two of many points [See Brief at p. 10].
The examiner argues that, as the appellant admits, Meadows does describe using the front
and middle of each green as desirable location points, and that selecting which points are matters
of choice [See Answer at p. 3]. The examiner further responds that as to the cradle, Ross is
merely evidence of the notoriety of the use of a cradle for the source of data [See Answer at
p. 4].
We initially note that the specification provides no indication of unusual results arising from
restricting the data elements to two points per hole. The specification describes such an
arrangement as a “simplified version of the present system” [See Specification at p. 12] in which
the device “will calculate his or her location relative to the front and middle of the [] green” [See
Specification at p. 13]. The only benefit of such a system described in the specification is that it
“simplifies the underlying concept of the present invention by requiring the mapping of only 36
coordinates” [See Specification at p. 14].
We next note that Meadows teaches storing a coordinate for each target on a golf course
(“The first process allows the user to survey the target/avoidance objects prior to playing a round
of golf.”) [See Para. 0049]. Examples of such targets are shown in Fig. 19, which, as the
appellant admits, includes both the front and center of the green. We also note that, as argued by
the appellant, additional points are shown which may be selected as well. But we particularly
note that the operator adds whichever targets the operator desires, as indicated by the injunctive
to “Tap Target to Add” in Fig. 19. Therefore, Meadows describes a range of choices for targets
whose coordinates will be stored. The presence of both of the claimed points of interest within
the range of choices places the claimed range of points within the range of points described by
Meadows.
In this type of claim, a prima facie case of obviousness arises when the ranges of a claimed
invention overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art. See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329
(Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d
1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303 (CCPA 1974). Although such
a case may be rebutted by a showing of unanticipated unusual results over the claimed range, the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007