Appeal No. 96-3286
Application 08/197,594
the rejection of all claims on appeal. As to independent claim
1, at oral hearing and at pages 8 through 11 of the Brief,
appellant argues two features of claim 1 are not taught or
suggested in the references relied upon. The first feature is
that portion of the vehicle-carried road storage device that
indicates this device stores road toll parameters associated with
said toll chargeable road network and individual toll parameters
being associated with a particular road section of the road
network and representing a proportional road toll due for the use
of this section. The second feature of claim 1 argued is that
the references do not individually or collectively teach the use
of such road toll parameter data in order to calculate the amount
of the toll that is due in the vehicle-carried computer unit
clause of claim 1 on appeal. With this second general assessment
of appellant, we fully agree.
Neither Tanaka nor Hirata relates to tolls in any manner.
Both in some manner relate to vehicle position detection.
Cardullo’s transponder is taught to be useable in an automatic
automotive vehicle highway toll system as expressed at column 3,
lines 40 through 59 and more specifically at column 7 of his
patent. No data other than toll dollar amounts may be entered
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007