Appeal No. 1998-2892 Page 6
Application No. 08/576,621
these two references in such a manner as to meet the terms of
the claims because “the teaching of Perlin is compatible with
the architecture of Lipscomb” (Paper No. 8, page 3). Claim 2
depends from claim 1, and claims 8 and 13-15 depend from claim
3, and so all include the elements which we found above were
not present in Lipscomb. It is our view that, even considering
Lipscomb in the light of 35 U.S.C. § 103, the shortcomings of 5
this reference that existed with regard to the Section 102
rejection remain, and they are not alleviated by Perlin. There
is no disclosure or teaching of the claimed elements in either
of the references and the examiner has not explained, nor can
we perceive on our own, any teaching, suggestion or incentive
in either reference which would have led one of ordinary skill
in the art to modify the teachings of Lipscomb in such a manner
as to meet the terms of these claims.
We reach the same conclusions, for the same reasons, with
regard to independent claim 16 and dependent claims 17-21.
Claim 16 does not require the presence of map data, but recites
5The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art. See, for example, In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007