Appeal No. 97-2524
Application 08/255,128
methodology of the Nimura references and asserts that Nimura
’696 and Nimura ’751 inherently suggest and/or disclose the
claimed features [answer, pages 5-6].
We agree with appellants that neither Nimura reference
discloses the invention of independent claims 1, 9, 17 and 19.
The data processing controller of either Nimura reference does
not provide instructions based on the driver’s timing
preferences. The timing instructions in each Nimura reference
are location dependent only. That is, instructions in both
Nimura references are timed to occur at specific locations and
are not based on individual driver timing preferences. Thus,
driver instruction timing preferences are not provided in
Nimura ’696 or Nimura ’751. Therefore, there is also no
degree of conformance determined as recited in independent
claims 1 and 9 nor a timing preference score determined as
recited in independent claim 19. Since the invention of
claims 1, 9, 17 and 19 is not fully disclosed by either Nimura
reference, we do not sustain the rejections based on Nimura
’696 or Nimura ’751. We now consider the
rejection of claims 1, 2, 9, 11-15 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. §
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007