Ex parte HIJIKATA - Page 3




          Appeal No. 2001-0027                                                        
          Application 09/110,397                                                      


                    a route searching means for searching for a                       
               preferred travel route by using said present position of               
               said mobile vehicle detected by said position detecting                
               means, said data of road units stored in said storage                  
               means, and said running experience data previously stored              
               in said running road storing means.                                    

               The prior art references of record relied upon by the                  
          Examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                              
          Ikeda et al. (Ikeda)          5,031,104                Jul. 9,              
          1991                                                                        
          Zechnall                      5,146,219                Sep. 8,              
          1992                                                                        
          Braegas                       5,406,490                Apr. 11,             
          1995                                                                        
          Maki                               5,557,524                Sep.            
          17, 1996                                                                    
                                                  (filed Sep. 30, 1993)               
          Hirota et al. (Hirota)        5,568,390           Oct. 22, 1996             
                                                      (filed Dec. 29,                
          1995)                                                                       
               Claims 5 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)                
          as being unpatentable over Braegas in view of Zechnall and                  
          Maki.  Claims 7 through 9, 12 and 17 stand rejected under 35                
          U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Braegas in view of               
          Zechnall, Maki and Ikeda.  Claims 11 and 16 stand rejected                  
          under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Braegas in              
          view of Zechnall, Maki and Hirota.                                          
               Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced              

                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007