Appeal No. 2001-0027
Application 09/110,397
type information and the traffic data related to distant
sections of the proposed routes other than the one actually
being traveled by the vehicle. Furthermore, we find that
Zechnall and Maki, at the best, store road information in a
storage device to be later retrieved and used in a vehicle
navigation system. Therefore, Zechnall and Maki neither
overcome the deficiencies discussed above with respect to
Braegas nor provide any teachings or suggestions to
realistically modify Braegas and store “running experience
data” each time the vehicle travels on the road unit which is
used in searching for the preferred route.
Thus, we find no teachings related to storing “running
experience data” as the vehicle travels on the road unit or
any reason for combining various teachings in these
references to arrive at the claimed invention. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Braegas in view of Zechnall and Maki.
With respect to the rejection of claims 7 through 9, 12
and 17 over Braegas in view of Zechnall, Maki and Ikeda and
the rejection of claims 11 and 16 over Braegas in view of
Zechnall, Maki and Hirota, Appellant argues that Ikeda and
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007