Appeal No. 97-2524
Application 08/255,128
With respect to claims 17 and 18, these claims recite
features which we discussed earlier in the rejection of claims
1 and 2. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 17 and
18 for reasons discussed above.
With respect to independent claim 19, appellants argue
that Davis has no disclosure of providing a maneuver
announcement timing preference score based on speed and
distance, and generating the guidance instructions at a timing
dependent on the timing preference score [brief, page 22]. We
agree with appellants that there is no disclosure in Davis of
computing a score in the manner recited in claim 19.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 19 as
anticipated by the disclosure of Davis. Since claim 20
depends from claim 19, we also do not sustain the rejection of
claim 20 as anticipated by the disclosure of Davis.
We now consider the rejection of claim 16 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over the teachings of Davis. Claim 16
depends from claim 13 through claim 14. As noted above in our
discussion of the rejection of claim 13, Davis does not
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007