Appeal No. 96-1460
Application 07/882,811
appropriate within 35 U.S.C. § 103 but not 35 U.S.C. § 102.
In view of these findings, we reverse the rejection of claims
1 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and their respective dependent
claims as set forth by the examiner in the above noted
rejection.
Lastly, independent claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Hanson alone. Even if we accept the basic position
of the examiner, based upon the teaching at col. 2, lines 55
to 59 of Hanson, that a global coordinate type of navigation
system was known in the art and would have been obvious to the
artisan to have utilized in the system of Hanson, we must
reverse the rejection of independent claim 14 because we
remain unconvinced that the teachings and showings within this
reference would have made obvious to the artisan all the
details with respect to the graphics processor in this claim.
At pages 4 and 5 of the answer, the examiner merely asserts
that the display 60 in Fig. 5 and the teaching at the bottom
of col. 8 would have rendered obvious to the artisan the
graphics processor clause and the function of the layer of
maps therewithin. Additionally, at page 5 of the answer, the
examiner admits that Hanson does not teach layers
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007