Appeal No. 2002-0662 Page 15
Application No. 09/099,963
Claims 4, 9 and 17
We sustain the rejection of claims 4, 9 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 4 reads as follows:
A navigation system of Claim 3, wherein said first position is a location of
a vehicle when said destination is selected and said second position is a location
of the vehicle when said system for determining said route has completed
determining said route to said destination.
The appellants argue that Ayanoglu does not teach or suggest a subsequent
determination of a current vehicle position in relation to the recommended route or the
display showing both the current vehicle position and the recommended route.
In our view, claim 4 would be inherently met by the modified system of Ayanoglu
when the position depicted in block 120 of Ayanoglu's Figure 3 is close to the current
vehicle position so that when the route is displayed the current vehicle position being
tracked by the GPS receiver would be displayed along with the route.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 4
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. In view of the appellants above-noted grouping of
claims, claims 9 and 17 fall with claim 4. Thus, it follows that the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 9 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is also affirmed.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007