Appeal No. 2002-0662 Page 17
Application No. 09/099,963
Claim 13
We sustain the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 7 and 13 read as follows:
7. A method for automatically scaling a display for a navigation
system including the steps of:
(a) determining a first position of the display relative to a database of
roads;
(b) selecting a destination in the database;
(c) calculating a route to the destination in the database;
(d) calculating a map scale including said route and said first position; and
(e) displaying said route and said first position based on said map scale.
13. The method of Claim 7 further including the steps of (f) displaying
at a first map scale prior to said step (e), and (g) displaying at a second map
scale different from said first map scale during said step (e).
The appellants argue that the applied prior art does not teach or suggest
displaying at a first map scale prior to the route determination and displaying at a
different map scale after the route determination.
In our view, claim 13 would be inherently met by the modified system of
Ayanoglu since prior to route determination the navigation system would be displaying
the vehicle's current position on a grid (i.e., a first map scale) and after the route
determination the grid is changed to display the entire route including the destination
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007