Appeal No. 2001-1480 Page 3
Application No. 09/129,285
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 11) for
the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections
and to the brief (Paper No. 10) for the appellant’s arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The anticipation rejection
Ayanoglu discloses a navigation system comprising a
central database 50 for storing traffic information including
traffic congestion, traffic speed, road conditions, road
closures, detours, etc. This traffic information is
transmitted to a microcontroller 22 located on a vehicle and
used to calculate the travel time for all possible alternative
routes and to determine the best route (i.e, the one which
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007