Appeal 2007-1787
Application 10/742,187
a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of
one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than
yield a predictable result,” KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (citing
United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 50-51, 148 USPQ 479, 483 (1966)). Appellants
provide no evidence that replacing the GPS system of Anderson with a differential
GPS system yields an unexpected result or was beyond the skill of one having
ordinary skill in the art. As such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14
as unpatentable over Bounds and Anderson.
The rejection of claim 15 as unpatentable over Bounds and Anderson
Appellants contend that “Bounds discloses nothing regarding the use of
GPS, and Anderson discloses nothing about how to discharge ballast from a railcar
when the starting point of the selected length of railway track is reached (step 3) or
how to terminate the discharge of ballast from a railcar when the ending point of
the selected length of track is reached (step 5) (Appeal Br. 10). Although we agree
that neither Bounds nor Anderson, when taken singularly, discloses a method as
recited in claim 15, the combined teachings of these two references would have led
one having ordinary skill in the art to the method as claimed. See KSR, 127 S.Ct.
at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (“When a work is available in one field of endeavor,
design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the
same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a
predictable variation, §103 likely bars its patentability.”) Bounds discloses a
method of controlling the application of ballast from a railcar by remotely
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013