Appeal No. 2001-2020
Application No. 09/271,232
and 6) that Bouliane is not concerned with conserving battery power because the emergency system
is connected to the vehicle’s electrical system, and would not be concerned with only transmitting to
the base computer “where the person has moved outside a preset perimeter and only after receipt of
the interrogation signal” to save battery power.
We likewise agree with the examiner (answer, page 4) that “Tognazzini teach[es] a locator
which integrates a GPS receiver with a wireless transceiver wherein a previously stored GPS
position is compared with a current GPS position to determine if the device has moved a
predetermined threshold distance, and if so, updates the memory with the new position as well as
wirelessly communicates the position information to a remote site (col. 7, lines 19-41).” Although
Tognazzini does in fact compare previously stored GPS data with current GPS data, the only action
taken in response to the comparison is to update the memory 38a with the new GPS data. In
Tognazzini, the comparison of GPS data is not performed in response to an interrogation signal, and
the noted wireless transmission of the GPS data is not done in response to the update of GPS data.
Thus, Tognazzini, like Bouliane and Kojima, is not concerned with making the noted comparison of
GPS data “after receipt” of an interrogation signal (brief, page 5).
In summary, even if we assume for the sake of argument that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the references in the manner suggested by the examiner
(answer, pages 4 and 5), all of the limitations of claim 1 would still not be found in the combined
teachings. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5, 6 and 8 is
reversed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007