Appeal No. 2002-0662 Page 19
Application No. 09/099,963
In our view, claim 23 is met by the modified system of Ayanoglu since a GPS
navigation system as taught Ayanoglu would inherently be repeatedly determining the
position of the navigation system and thus displaying the current vehicle position on a
selected map and repeatedly determining the map scale as the vehicle proceeds along
a route.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. In view of the appellants above-noted grouping of
claims, claim 24 falls with claim 23. Thus, it follows that the decision of the examiner to
reject claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is also affirmed.
Claims 2, 8 and 16
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 8 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 2, 8 and 16 add to their respective parent claims the further limitation that
the navigation system determines a distance from the position to the route and that the
display displays the distance.
The appellants argue that there is no teaching or suggestion in Endo or the other
applied references (i.e., Ayanoglu and Fast) of displaying a distance from the position
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007