Appeal No. 2000-1741
Application No. 08/654,401
Broad independent claim 13 does not include the limitation
of “geographical mapping” per se. However, in any event, we will
not sustain the examiner’s rejection of the claims under
35 U.S.C. 103 because, in our view, the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the
instant claimed subject matter.
Each of the independent claims includes at least the
limitation of the computer or the mobile data terminal or the
portable integrated geographic information and automatic vehicle
location system “not adapted for the collection of route planning
or computerized navigation data.” The examiner notes this
limitation, at page 4 of the answer, but dismisses this “negative
limitation” as not distinguishing of the art of record because
neither applied reference “so limits itself that the systems
could not include some information for uses besides route
planning or navigation. In fact, Behr teaches that it is
desirable to save various attributes of a point of interest,”
e.g., parks, schools, hospitals, restaurants, golf courses,
museums and airports.
The examiner misses the point. It is not a matter of
whether the applied references “could” not include some
information other than route planning or navigation. The reality
-4–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007