Appeal No. 1999-0526
Application No. 08/581,937
to that position.” The examiner maintains that storing the plurality of location data of the
vehicle would improve the vehicle tracking and security of the system by having all the
information at hand when needed. (See answer at pages 4-5.) While we agree with this
conclusion of the examiner, the examiner has not provided a line of reasoning for
motivating the skilled artisan to retain this information. Clearly, Mansell does not teach or
suggest “storing in the memory a plurality of successive itinerary data points at intervals
throughout the itinerary of the mobile object” as set forth in the language of claim 1.
(Emphasis added.) Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1. Independent
claims 5 and 9 contain similar language; therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of
claims 5 and 9 and dependent claims 2 and 6.
The examiner has not identified any teaching in Landt or Aspell which would remedy
the deficiency in Mansell. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of dependent claims
3, 4, 7, 8, 10 and 11.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007