Appeal 2007-1787
Application 10/742,187
controlling the position of a hopper door (Finding of Facts 4-7). Anderson
discloses a method of controlling the application of an aggregate, such as lime,
fertilizer, or seeds, based on geographic land area reference point data and GPS
data indicating the location of the dispensing apparatus (Finding of Fact 9-14).
The use of Anderson’s GPS-based system to more efficiently and accurately
control application of ballast from the railcar of Bounds would have been a
predictable variation of Bounds in view of the teaching of Anderson. As such, the
Appellants have failed to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s determination of
obviousness, and thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 as
unpatentable over Bounds and Anderson.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bounds and
Anderson.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) to reject claims 13-15 as
unpatentable over Bounds and Anderson is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).
AFFIRMED
15
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013