Appeal No. 96-1106
Application 07/998,721
brief) is belied by the fair teachings of the references.
To begin with, it is true that neither reference
discloses means for calculating and displaying the difference
between the distances of two recommendable routes as recited
in claims 19 and 20, or the corresponding calculating and
displaying steps recited in claim 24. As indicated above,
however, Kirson does teach the calculation and simultaneous
display of alternate route information with ranking criteria
describing mileage differences (see Figures 4 and 5) to allow
the vehicle operator to make an informed decision as to route
selection. This concern with conveying mileage differences to
the vehicle operator would have suggested the actual
calculation and display of such differences in order to avoid
the need for the vehicle operator to perform a mental
calculation of same.
Furthermore, Kirson's disclosure of the selection of one
of the alternative routes to implement vehicle guidance
instructions, presumably via speaker 17 and CRT display 18,
would have suggested an apparatus and method meeting the
selected route input and display means/steps recited in claims
19, 20 and 24.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007