Appeal No. 96-1920
Application 08/218,136
re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 504, 190 USPQ 214, 219 (CCPA 1976).
The examiner’s position is based on his personal assessment of
the capabilities of GPS systems. Appellant has argued that
the GPS system of the cited prior art could be used to
implement the claimed invention.
We will not sustain this rejection. First, we note
that only claims 9 and 12 recite a GPS system. Dependent
claims 10 and 11 are not directed to this area of the
invention. Second, we agree with appellant that the examiner
has not properly supported his assertion of nonenablement in
this case. The claims merely recite that a reference travel
trajectory is determined from data given from a preprogrammed
map of a GPS. We see no reason why the artisan would have
difficulty preparing a preprogrammed map of an area based on
GPS data. Once the map is generated, a path on the map can be
monitored and a reference trajectory can be easily determined
as asserted by appellant. On this record we find no support
for the examiner’s position that the disclosure is not
enabling. Therefore, we do not sustain this rejection of
claims 9-12.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007