Appeal No. 2000-0872
Application No. 08/852,119
forwarding travel data to a computer associated with said
user; and
producing a message at said computer for said user
indicative of an impending arrival of said vehicle at said
vehicle stop before said vehicle reaches said vehicle stop, based
upon said travel data.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Ross (Ross I) 5,444,444 Aug. 22, 1995
(effectively filed May 14, 1993)
Ross (Ross II) 5,648,770 Jul. 15, 1997
(effectively filed May 14, 1993)
Claims 1 through 21, 23 through 35, 37 through 41, 43
through 47, and 49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Ross I or Ross II.
Claims 36, 42, and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Ross I or alternatively Ross II.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 30,
mailed October 29, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellant's Brief (Paper
No. 29, filed September 27, 1999) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 31,
filed December 6, 1999) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007