Appeal No. 96-0463
Application 08/069,161
is correlated to a nearby geographic center” is misplaced. The
argument made is not what is actually recited in the claim. The
separateness of the association is not precluded by the language
of representative claim 5. Person clearly meets the language
claimed. Person performs “geocoding” to the extent claimed. The
assertion made at page 10 of the original brief that Person
“fails to disclose a places of interest database having places of
interest grouped by geographic center” is also misplaced. There
is no claimed “grouping.” There is only a broadly recited
“association.” The claim does not preclude each place of
interest having its own geographic center.
Even though we recognize that Person directly correlates
by latitude and longitude each and all named items within the
various memories, appellants' invention never loses sight of
this among the various databases anyway. Appellants' recitation
of the claimed “geographic center” amounts to an indirect,
intermediate manner of correlating the disclosed latitude and
longitude of each place of interest. To the extent claimed, we
see no patentable distinction. In any event, the broadly defined
use in Person of the temporary memory correlates all data from
all the various memories in one common “database” directly or
indirectly broadly associated or correlated. To the extent
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007