Appeal No. 2000-1741
Application No. 08/654,401
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective
positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
Gazis is directed to an optimal route planning system and
Behr is directed to a computerized navigation system. Taking
broad independent claim 13 as exemplary, it appears to be the
examiner’s position that the in-vehicle unit 6 of Gazis is the
claimed “mobile data terminal,” the GPS receiver 24 is the
claimed GPS receiver and the voice recognition system described
at column 4, lines 29-33, allows for the claimed “receiving
verbalized identifying information.”
The examiner notes that Gazis doesn’t use the term,
“geographical mapping” but teaches that it is well known to track
the travel of a vehicle, as well as providing route information.
The examiner turns to Behr for the teaching of providing map
information for many metropolitan regions and contends that it
would have been obvious to combine the regional and surroundings
explorer function of Behr with the system of Gazis “because both
systems are for navigation purposes to help users travel safely
and Behr teaches that his additional mapping features provide
further convenience to help people travel within desired time and
distances” [answer-page 4].
-3–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007