Appeal No. 2001-0027
Application 09/110,397
location of the vehicle since route changes are provided
shortly before another route is to be abandoned (answer, page
6). Furthermore, the Examiner indicates that Zechnall obtains
“run experience data” using a test vehicle that records the
data while running on roads. With regard to Maki, the
Examiner states that travel route data is recorded manually in
a record book based on the odometer input as a vehicle travels
on a road (answer, page 7).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The conclusion that the
claimed subject matter is obvious must be supported by
evidence, as shown by some objective teaching in the prior art
or by knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill
in the art that would have led that individual to combine the
relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed
invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Furthermore, to reach a
conclusion of obviousness under § 103, the examiner must also
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007