Appeal No. 96-1106
Application 07/998,721
meeting the foregoing display limitations is well taken. The
examiner's conclusion to the contrary is predicated on the
general discussion of driver preferences at column 6, lines 6
through 13, of the Link reference and on the depiction of text
and graphic display formats in Figures 4 and 5 of the Kirson
reference (see pages 2 through 5 in the answer). Suffice to
say that neither has any particular relevance to the specific
display limitations set forth in claims 14 and 23.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claims 14 and 23, or of claims 17 and 18
which depend from claim 14.
We shall sustain, however, the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 19, 20 and 24.
Here, the appellants' argument that the rejection of
these claims is unsound because Link and Kirson would not have
suggested a traffic navigation apparatus and method meeting
the
last four elements in apparatus claims 19 and 20 or the last
four steps in method claim 24 (see pages 6 and 7 in the main
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007