Appeal No. 2002-1474 Page 18
Application No. 09/002,927
Accordingly, these claims fall with independent claim 1 (brief,
page 3).
Turning to independent claim 11, the claim recites “wherein
the form of the received status information is used by said
guidance apparatus to determine the form of the positional,
guidance, and status information that is output to the driver.”
The examiner provides no explanation of how this limitation is
met by the teachings and suggestions of Furuya and Liebesny.
From our review of the applied prior art, we find no teaching or
suggestion of using the form of the received status information
to determine the form of the status information that is output to
the driver. Accordingly, we find that the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness of independent claim
11. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 11, and claims 12-14,
dependent therefrom, is reversed.
We turn next to claims 3, 6, 20 and 23. Appellants assert
(brief, page 11) that each of these claims recites an optical
beacon receiver, and that this feature is not taught by the
references, as admitted by the examiner. It is argued (id.) that
the examiner may not rely upon official or judicial notice at the
exact point where patentable novelty is argued. The examiner's
position (answer, page 5) is that in view of the prior art's
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007