Appeal No. 2006-3323
Application No. 10/287,151
waiting at the station, and wherein said passenger has no
connection with the initial location signal. Similarly, the time
interval between adjacent stops disclosed by Schmier is not
intended to be transmitted to the mobile communication system where
the location signal originated.
Consequently, we find error in the Examiner’s stated position,
which concludes that Schmier teaches estimating and sending the
time-of-arrival bounds for a confidence interval for a user in
transit from a source location to a destination location. It is
therefore our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to the ordinarily skilled
artisan the invention as set forth in claims 1, 3 and 6.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1, 3 and 6.
II. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, is the Rejection of Claim 5 as being
unpatentable over Schmier Proper?
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can
satisfy this burden by showing that some objective teaching in
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007