Appeal No. 1999-0526
Application No. 08/581,937
the navigation receiver and a time of day corresponding to that position," and that the
examiner has not provided a convincing line of reasoning to modify the prior art to store a
history of the vehicle’s position over time. (See brief at pages 3-5 and reply brief at pages
1-4.)
Appellants argue that Mansell teaches and suggests the storage of data for limited
periods while the system is out of range and transmission of position data upon return to
the transmission area, but that the storage is based upon an event such as the vehicle
being stolen. (See brief at page 4 and Mansell at columns 14 and 15.) We agree with
appellants that Mansell does not store a complete history of the itinerary and transmission
of the stored data upon interrogation. Furthermore, appellants argue that Mansell is an
event driven system rather than a storing of an itinerary (an account or a record of a
journey) as set forth in the language of claim 1. The teachings of Mansell would only
provide monitoring of those portions of a journey where events occurred. If no events
occurred, then no recordation thereof would transpire.
Moreover, the examiner has not provided a convincing line of reasoning why it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
store in the memory “a plurality of successive itinerary data points at intervals throughout
the itinerary of the mobile object, wherein each successive itinerary data point includes a
successive position computed by the navigation receiver and a time of day corresponding
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007