Appeal No. 2002-0662 Page 13
Application No. 09/099,963
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. In view of the appellants above-noted grouping of
claims, claims 7, 14, 15 and 21 fall with claim 1. Thus, it follows that the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 7, 14, 15 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is also affirmed.
Claim 3
We sustain the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 3 reads as follows:
A navigation system of Claim 1, wherein said position includes at least a
first position and a second position, said system for determining said route based
on said first position and said display being automatically scaled to display said
route and said second position, said first position being different than said
second position.
The appellants argue that Ayanoglu does not teach or suggest a determination
of a second vehicle position or a subsequent determination of vehicle position in
relation to the recommended route after the route has been determined. The
appellants also assert that the destination point is not a determination of a second
vehicle position after the best route has been determined.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007