Appeal No. 2002-0662 Page 16
Application No. 09/099,963
Claim 6
We sustain the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 6 reads as follows:
A navigation system of Claim 3 further wherein said second position is not
on said route.
The appellants argue that Ayanoglu does not teach or suggest a subsequent
determination of a current vehicle position that is not on the route.
In our view, claim 6, like claim 4, would be inherently met by the modified system
of Ayanoglu when the position depicted in block 120 of Ayanoglu's Figure 3 is close to
the current vehicle position so that when the route is displayed the current vehicle
position being tracked by the GPS receiver would be displayed along with the route.
When the current vehicle position is not on the route but close to the route (as would be
the case in some instances) it would be displayed along with the route.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007