Appeal No. 2002-0662 Page 18
Application No. 09/099,963
point and the initial point of the determined route (i.e., a second map scale different
from the first map scale so that the entire route is displayed).
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Claims 23 and 24
We sustain the rejection of claims 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 23 reads as follows:
A method for automatically scaling a display for a navigation system
including the steps of:
repeatedly determining a position of the navigation system relative to a
database of roads;
determining a route in the database of roads;
selecting a location in the database of roads;
repeatedly determining a map scale which would ensure that the position
of the navigation system and the location can both be displayed simultaneously;
and
displaying the position of the navigation system and the location on a map
at the determined scales, insuring that the position of the navigation system and
the location are both displayed simultaneously.
The appellants argue that the applied prior art does not teach or suggest either
(1) repeatedly determining the position of the navigation system; or (2) repeatedly
determining a map scale.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007