Appeal No. 2002-0662 Page 12
Application No. 09/099,963
We agree with the appellants that the teachings of Fast would have suggested
that both the initial position of the vehicle prior to route determination (Ayanoglu's
"current position depicted in block 120 of Figure 3) and the destination point be
automatically scaled to be simultaneously displayed and that the current vehicle
position may not be included in such display. However, contrary to the argument of the
appellants, claim 1 does not recite that the current vehicle position be included in the
display. Claim 1 requires that (1) a system determine both "a position of the navigation
system relative to the database" and a route to a destination; and (2) a display
automatically being scaled to display the route and the position. Thus, claim 1 is
readable on the teachings of Ayanoglu and Fast as combined by the examiner since
the system of Ayanoglu as modified by the teachings of Fast would determine both a
position of the navigation system relative to the database (the initial position of the
vehicle prior to route determination, the current position depicted in block 120 of
Ayanoglu's Figure 3) and a route to a destination (depicted in block 170 of Ayanoglu's
Figure 3) and then automatically scale the display to include the route to the destination
point and the position (the initial position of the vehicle prior to route determination and
thus the initial point of the determined route).1
1 In fact, it appears to us that claim 1 is probably anticipated by Ayanoglu and the admitted prior
art discussed on pages 1-2 of the specification. This admitted prior art states that the typical navigation
system provides a guidance mode map showing the starting point, desired destination, current location
and highlights the recommended route.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007