Appeal No. 1997-0198
Application No. 08/227,609
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims
1, 2 and 4 through 14.
All of the claims on appeal require the display of a subset
of monitored traffic event information that coincides with a
travel route model.
Appellant argues (brief, page 4) that Sumner does not select
“information for display based upon a model of the route along
which the vehicle is traveling,” and that “[a] cell is not a
route model.”
The examiner contends that “the vehicle processor subsystem
(103) receiv[es] all link messages for all cells and process[es]
only those messages which the driver wishes to display thereby
allowing the driver to discriminate from among data within an
area and have displayed or reported only that data which is
applicable to his or her particular direction of travel” (answer,
page 4), and that “the reference of Sumner reads on the claimed
route being stored as the vehicle is driven along that route,
since the Bosch Travelpilot of Sumner stores data representing
maps, these maps containing the cells defining travel routes and
being stored on a compact disc so as to display the position of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007