Appeal No. 2002-0662 Page 20
Application No. 09/099,963
to the route. We agree. In fact, in the rejection of these claims, the examiner
ascertained that Ayanoglu did not teach the claimed displaying a distance from the
position to the route but never determined that it would have been obvious at the time
the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified
Ayanoglu to display a distance from the position to the route. Accordingly, a case of
obviousness of the subject matter of claims 2, 8 and 16 has not been established by
the examiner. Additionally, the examiner's reference to the distance sensor 30 of
Ayanoglu (answer, p. 7) is misplaced since that sensor measures the traveling distance,
not the distance from the position to the route, and does not display the traveled
distance.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 2,
8 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Claims 10, 11, 18, 19 and 22
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 10, 11, 18, 19 and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007