Appeal No. 2002-0662 Page 21
Application No. 09/099,963
Claims 10, 11, 18, 19 and 22 add to their respective parent claims the further
limitation that the navigation system determines the route based on the first position
and calculates the map scale based on the second position.
The appellants argue that there is no teaching or suggestion in the applied
references (i.e., Ayanoglu and Fast) of scaling a display to include the route and a
second vehicle position determined after the route has been calculated. We agree. In
that regard, while we believe the subject matter of claims 3, 4 and 6 would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art for the
reasons set forth above, claims 10, 11, 18, 19 and 22 require the scaling of the map to
be based on the second position and the calculated route while the applied prior art
only teaches and suggests the scaling of the map to be based on either (1) the current
vehicle location or (2) the route. Thus, a case of obviousness of the subject matter of
these claims has not been established by the examiner.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 10,
11, 18, 19 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Claims 5, 12 and 20
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 5, 12 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007