Appeal No. 2002-0553
Application No. 09/391,782
Further, and notwithstanding appellants’ (brief, page 5) and
affiant’s (affidavit, pages 2 and 3) respective viewpoints to the
contrary, we explained above that the broadly set forth route
window of claim 2, as earlier defined, is responded to by the
list of waypoints of Briffe. More particularly, appellants
(brief, page 5) and affiant (affidavit, page 2) point out that
the graphical map (545) of Fig. 16, for example, is not a route
window. We agree. However, Fig. 16, as earlier noted, also
includes a listing of waypoints (WPT LIST) 550. Clearly, that
listing is responsive to the broadly claimed route window, and is
distinct from a map display contrary to appellants’ viewpoint
(brief, page 6).
We also sustain the rejection of claim 3 since the WPT LIST
of Fig. 16 of Briffe includes a control button. Further, we
sustain the rejection of claim 8,5 particularly since appellants
have not presented any argument relative thereto. However, we do
not sustain the rejection of claims 4, 5, 6, and 13 for the
5 Claim 8 improperly depends from canceled claim 7. This
matter should be addressed by the examiner during any further
prosecution in this application.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007