Appeal No. 96-1920
Application 08/218,136
and obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the
prior art rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s
arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the specification and the claims comply with
the requirements of the first and second paragraphs of 35
U.S.C.
§ 112. We are also of the view that none of the examiner’s
prior art rejections is adequately supported by the prior art
of record in this case except for the rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Takahashi ’785. Accordingly, we
affirm-in-part.
We consider first the rejection of claims 9-12 under
the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The examiner asserts
that the present disclosure is not sufficient to enable one of
ordinary skill in the art to use a global positioning system
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007