Appeal No. 2002-1474 Page 8
Application No. 09/002,927
transmitted image data i.e., the transmitted traffic congestion
problem. Because Liebesny only displays one type of information
at a time, it teaches away from this fundamental concept of the
claimed invention.” Lastly, appellants assert that because
Liebesny does not suggest that the received video information is
displayed along with the position information of the driver's
vehicle, and Furuya does not teach or suggest combining present
position indications along with image data that is displayed in
the form that it is received, that the references teach away from
the claimed combination, and together could not accomplish what
is required by claim 1 or any of the independent claims.
Before addressing the examiner's rejections based upon prior
art, it is an essential prerequisite that the claimed subject
matter be fully understood. Analysis of whether a claim is
patentable over the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103 begins with a
determination of the scope of the claim. The properly
interpreted claim must then be compared with the prior art.
Claim interpretation must begin with the language of the claim
itself. See Smithkline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Laboratories
Corp., 859 F.2d 878, 882, 8 USPQ2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Before turning to the proper construction of the claim, it
is important to review some basic principles of claim
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007