Appeal No. 96-2583
Application 08/243,087
If Moroto had disclosed the display of “an already covered distance” (Brief, page 13) from the
departure point to the present position in addition to the above-noted display of how far the vehicle has
to travel from the present position to the destination point, then we would be inclined to agree with the
examiner that a ratio of “part to whole” (Answer, page 4) would have been fully understood by a
skilled artisan. Since Moroto neither teaches nor would have suggested the display of such “an already
covered distance,” we must agree with appellants that it would not have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to calculate a degree of attainment as set forth in claims 7 through 9. Thus, the
obviousness rejection of claims 7 through 9 is reversed.
Turning to the obviousness rejection of claims 10, 11, 13 and 14, the examiner states (Answer,
pages 4 and 5) that:
Moroto et al. do not teach a timer. Mori et al. teach a counter which functions
to count an actual running time, and in combination to calculate an estimated average
speed and estimated running time (column 2, line 1, 65-66; column 4, lines 26-42). It
would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to combine the display teachings of Moroto et al. with the counter teachings of
Mori et al. because the invention of Mori et al. suggests the essential features that assist
the driver in arriving at the destination on time (column 1, lines 8-17).
Appellants argue (Brief, page 13) that “[n]either of these references allows a user to recognize
an already covered distance in relation to the entire route.”
We agree. Accordingly, the obviousness rejection of claims 10, 11, 13 and 14 is reversed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007