Appeal No. 95-3175
Application 08/124,361
a calibration system operable to calibrate the computerized information processing system
with an odometer of the vehicle, such that said information representative of distance traveled
corresponds to actual distance traveled as measured by said odometer.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Juhasz 4,067,061 January 3, 1978
Eshelman 4,646,042 February 24, 1987
Webb et al. (Webb) 4,852,000 July 25, 1989
Claims 15-19, 26-27, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which appellants regard
as their invention. The examiner states (Examiner's Answer, page 3): "As per claim 15, it is unclear what
is meant by 'calibration system' (line 20), since an 'information processing system' is recited in the preamble
(line 2, emphasis added)."
Claims 15-19 and 26-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Webb2
and Eshelman. The examiner finds that Webb teaches a computerized information processing system for
keeping track of vehicular and non-vehicular expenses. The examiner finds Webb's disclosure of a "direct
mileage input" to mean "automatically inputting information" from a mileage sensor of the vehicle to the
processing system. The examiner finds that Webb does not disclose the sensor to provide the "direct
mileage input," but concludes that it would have been obvious to use a sensor as described in Eshelman.
The examiner finds that Webb does not disclose calibration, but finds that calibration is inherently
The first paragraph of § 103 was redesignated as § 103(a) as of November 1, 1995.2
Pub. L. 104-41, sec. 1, 109 Stat. 351 (Nov. 1, 1995). This was after the Final Rejection was entered
but before the Examiner's Answer. Accordingly, the rejection should refer to § 103(a).
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007