Appeal No. 96-3758
Application 08/252,832
received data because such display would "better serve the user"
(answer at 4). We are unpersuaded. Pitchford would give one
with ordinary skill in the art no reasonable motivation to
selectively display the data received through the I/O port of its
navigation device. To say that it would better serve the user to
do so is not very meaningful unless such advantage or preference
stems from the applied prior art. There can be no presumption
that one with ordinary skill in the art would want to have
displayed anything and everything received by Pitchford’s
navigation device through its I/O port from another instrument.
Randelman does not make up for the deficiencies of
Pitchford, since Randelman does not have anything to do with a
navigation system or the providing of supplementary navigation
data to a navigation system already storing or displaying primary
navigation data. With regard to claim 16, Randelman is relied on
by the examiner only to meet the limitation of a plurality of
local stations and communication systems (answer at 5-6).
For all of the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 1, 7, 10 and 12 as being unpatentable over
Pitchford. And we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 2-
4, 8, 9, 11 and 16-19 as being unpatentable over Pitchford and
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007