Appeal No. 97-2524
Application 08/255,128
102(e) as anticipated by the disclosure of Davis. The
examiner supports this rejection by attempting to read
exemplary claim 1 on Davis [answer, pages 3-4]. With respect
to claim 1, appellants argue that Davis does not disclose
generating “distance differences,” driver preferences for
instruction timing or generating an instruction whose timing
is determined by a degree of conformance [brief, pages 12-14].
We do not agree with any of these contentions of
appellants. Davis clearly calculates distance differences
because Davis must calculate the place to speak by calculating
distances from where a maneuver is to take place [column 18,
lines 19-31]. The actual location must be compared to the
calculated location in order to implement the instruction at
the proper time. These calculations result in distance
differences. Davis discloses providing driver
instruction timing preferences. Davis indicates that “[t]he
Back Seat Driver preferably stores knowledge of its users, and
uses this knowledge to customize its instructions to the
preferences of the users” [column 2, lines 59-62]. Davis also
notes that the new user should play the role of “back seat
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007