Appeal No. 2002-1474 Page 6
Application No. 09/002,927
image information and visually displaying updated image
information.”
Appellants assert (brief, page 4) that the examiner has
misinterpreted the prior art and has overlooked express
limitations in the claims. In the invention, when the receivers
receive vehicle information in a certain format (e.g., image
data) the controller displays the information in the same form
that it was received, along with a present position of the
driver's vehicle. Appellants assert (id.) that none of the
references suggests a vehicle information receiver that adapts
the form of the displayed data based upon the form of the
received data. Rather, the applied art simply displays data
based upon the reconfigured display formats of the onboard
device.
Turning to Liebesny, appellants assert (brief, page 5) that
the information gathered by cameras 17 is inputted to human
coordinators who manually input the data to keyboard stations.
The processed data is then viewed by an operations manager 23 at
a central station, who manually inputs corresponding data into an
electronic map data station M2. Data station M2 encodes the data
and transmits it using RF transmission to video receiver V
located in the driver's vehicle. Appellants argue (brief, page
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007