Appeal No. 2002-0662 Page 14
Application No. 09/099,963
In our view, claim 3 is readable on the teachings of Ayanoglu and Fast as
combined by the examiner since the modified system of Ayanoglu would automatically
scale the display to include the destination point, the starting position determined by the
GPS receiver and the route therebetween. In that regard, it is our determination that
claim 3 does not require both the first and second positions to be determined by the
navigation system. Instead, claim 3 requires only that one of the first and second
positions to be determined by the navigation system. Thus, the claimed second
position is readable on the destination point. Additionally, even if claim 3 were
interpreted to require both the first and second positions to be determined by the
navigation system it is our view that such would be inherently met by the modified
system of Ayanoglu when the current position depicted in block 120 of Ayanoglu's
Figure 3 is a fixed position (e.g., the vehicle is stopped to determine a route) and the
route to the destination is displayed prior to moving the stopped vehicle and then the
vehicle proceeds along the route and the GPS receiver would track the progress of the
vehicle along the route.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 3
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007