Appeal No. 97-2524
Application 08/255,128
claim 9 is essentially analogous to claim 1, we also sustain
the rejection of claim 9.
With respect to claim 2, appellants argue that Davis
does not teach that the guidance instruction timing is
dependent on the measured speed of the vehicle. We do not
agree. Davis discloses that the navigator of the Back Seat
Driver maintains an estimate of the current position and
velocity of the car [column 25, lines 10-11]. Davis also
discloses that the Back Seat Driver determines at what point
to offer instructions to safely implement maneuvers based on
the speed of the vehicle. We are of the view that this
disclosure of Davis meets the broad recitation of claim 2 that
the timing of instructions is dependent on the speed of the
vehicle. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 2.
With respect to claim 11, appellants merely assert
that Davis does not disclose variable driver instruction
timing preferences [brief, page 15]. In our view, the user-
models created in Davis would clearly provide variable timing
preferences consistent with the preferences initially
established by the user acting as a “back seat driver.”
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007