Appeal 2007-1787
Application 10/742,187
information is utilized to cause said position control subsystem to activate
said hopper door actuator to open said hopper door at the beginning of said
selected section of said railroad and to retain said hopper door open along
said selected section with said railroad car in motion and only for such a
duration in which said GPS receiver detects a location of said car
corresponding to said selected section of said railroad.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Barnard1 US 5,119,102 Jun. 02, 1992
Bounds US 5,657,700 Aug. 19, 1997
Anderson US 6,027,053 Feb. 22, 2000
The following rejection is before us for review.
1. Claims 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Bounds and Anderson.
ISSUE
Appellants contend that: (1) “[t]he two types of machinery [disclosed in
Bounds and Anderson] are clearly non-analogous and wholly disparate, as are the
materials they handle” (Appeal Br. 6); (2) “Bounds fails to teach anything about
GPS control” (Appeal Br. 8); and (3) “Anderson fails to teach anything about how
a GPS receiver can be used to open a hopper door when a ballast spread zone is
reached, maintain the door open while the ballast spread zone is being traversed,
and fully close the hopper door when the end of the ballast spreading zone is
1 Barnard was cited in the Examiner’s Answer (Answer 10) in support of the
Official Notice first taken in the Office Action dated September 22, 2005.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013