Ex Parte GOSS et al - Page 2




               Appeal No. 2000-0235                                                                                                 
               Application No. 08/765,502                                                                                           


               outputting the traffic messages.  Figure 3 of the specification shows a storage medium with a first                  
               part 34 which contains information necessary to decode the traffic message, and a second part 35                     
               which contains information for the voice alert.  The first part 34 can be easily accessed by a                       
               decoding program.  The following claim further illustrates the invention.                                            
               Claim 11.  A device for informing a motor vehicle driver comprising:                                                 
                       a receiver for receiving and decoding at least one digitally coded traffic message;                          
                       an auto navigator for determining an instantaneous position of a vehicle and at least one                    
               route recommendation; and                                                                                            
                       only one data storage unit having a data storage medium for storing both a digitally coded                   
               road map and information needed for decoding and outputting the at least one traffic message;                        
                       wherein the receiver, the auto navigator and the data storage unit form a single structural                  
               unit.                                                                                                                
                       The examiner relies on the following references:                                                             
               Duckeck et al. (Duckeck)               5, 020,143             May 28, 1991                                           
               Kakihara et al. (Kakihara)             5,293,163              Mar.  8, 1994                                          
               Braegas                                5,406,490              Apr. 11, 1995                                          
                       Claims 11, 12, 14 and 17-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable                    
               over Braegas in view of Kakihara.                                                                                    
                       Claim 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Braegas in view                   
               of Kakihara and Duckeck.                                                                                             





                                                                 2                                                                  





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007