Appeal No. 2002-0662 Page 11
Application No. 09/099,963
Claims 1, 7, 14, 15 and 21
We sustain the rejection of claims 1, 7, 14, 15 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 1 reads as follows:
A navigation system comprising:
a database of roads;
a system for determining a position of the navigation system relative to the
database;
a system for determining a route to a destination in said database; [and]
a display for displaying said route and said position, said display
automatically scaling said display to include said route and said position.
The appellants' argue that there is no teaching or suggestion in Ayanoglu of a
subsequent determination of current vehicle position in relation to the recommended
route since the "current" or "actual" position of the vehicle utilized in Ayanoglu is
determined prior to the calculation of the recommended route. The appellants then
point out that Fast would not have suggested displaying both the route and the current
vehicle position. The appellants admit (brief, pp. 5-6) that based on the teachings of
Fast, the initial position of the vehicle prior to route determination (Ayanoglu's "current
position depicted in block 120 of Figure 3) and the destination point would be
automatically scaled to be simultaneously displayed.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007