Appeal No. 1998-2372 Page 9
Application No. 08/639,815
Because DeLuca teaches storing only locations and their
respective time zones, we are not persuaded that teachings
from the prior art would have suggested the limitations of "a
memory medium storing information about time zone boundaries";
"providing an element for storing time zone boundary
information"; or "a computer program stored on said memory
medium, said computer program including instructions for
comparing information about a current location of a timepiece
with stored information about a time zone boundary ...." The
examiner fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 8-11,
and 14 as obvious over DeLuca in view of Van Orsdel. We next
address claim 4.
Claim 4
The appellant argues, "[n]one of the references transmit
update information from a vehicle to a separate timepiece."
(Appeal Br. at 5.) The examiner responds, "the vehicle is
shown by 11 in V [sic]." (Examiner's Answer at 4.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007