Appeal No. 2002-0604 Page 6
Application No. 09/240,926
is determined by pacing it off, the measurements can be used to compute the distance
to the object. However, there clearly is no teaching of providing computational circuitry
coupled to a memory and a motion sensor, and using this system to compute and
present an indication of the bearing, as is required by independent claims 6, 13 and 22.
We are not convinced otherwise by the explanations provided by the examiner on
pages 5 and 6 of the Answer, in response to the appellant’s arguments. We also wish
to point out that we do not agree with the examiner that the feature in claims 8, 17 and
26 of presenting a three-dimensional presentation on a two-dimensional display would
have been obvious in view of Neumann.
It therefore is our conclusion that the teachings of Neumann do not establish a
prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in
independent claims 6, 13 and 22 and, it follows, of claims 8-12, 14, 17-21, 23 and 26-
28, which depend therefrom.
It is the examiner’s view that the method of claims 32 and 33, the device of
claims 34 and 35, and the program product of claims 36 and 37 would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of column 5, lines 27-42 and column 6,
lines 20-37 of Neumann. The appellant has grouped these claims with claim 6, and has
not provided in the Brief any argument separately challenging their rejection. This
being the case, the position advanced by the examiner with regard to claims 32-37
stands uncontroverted, and we shall sustain the rejection of these claims.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007