Appeal 2007-0967
Application 10/367,001
Although still contesting the Examiner’s views with respect to
Bellesfield in the Reply Brief, with respect to the above-noted generating
clause of representative independent claim 29 on appeal, Appellant would
appear to agree with the Examiner’s views that at least the features of
generating a shape based on a first distance value between two locations was
taught in Bellesfield. As in the principal Brief on appeal, Appellant’s
principal argument is directed to the feature of this clause alleging that the
requirement of this claim that a second distance value be determined based
on the first distance value is not met by Bellesfield alone or in combination
with Bouve.
This identical argument was made as well beginning at page 4 of the
principal Brief on appeal. Appellant’s own consideration there of the
teachings of Bellesfield makes reference to the teachings at columns 10 and
11 of this reference, asserting that the width of the corridor is not related to
the distance between the departure and destination points. We agree with
the views expressed here as to this portion of the reference since it focuses
upon a predetermined distance from a so-called shape point to determine the
location of a place of interest. On the other hand, however, the teaching at
the bottom of column 9, clearly indicates otherwise. At lines 53 through 55
it is stated that “the travel route is preferably displayed with a video line
having a width which is slightly wider than the widest road along the route.”
Once the route and the distance between the departure and destination point
are determined in Bellesfield, the displayed value is highlighted as stated.
This is done to first determine the route or the distance of this route and then
to determine the widest road for this route or distance and in turn to depict
the route in a slightly wider fashion, thus clearly indicating to the artisan that
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013