Appeal No. 2004-1426
Application No. 10/038,346
predetermined, in step 658, before selection of the closest service
provider in step 662. The distance to the closest service provider S1 must
be less then the predetermined distance, or else the vehicle would not be
able to reach the selected service facility and the explicit purpose of
Suman invention (see column 35, lines 47-51) would be rendered
pointless.
While we agree with the examiner’s characterization of the reference, we
fail to find that Suman teaches the claimed “selecting the closer service provider
to provide the maintenance service when the closer service provider is within a
predetermined distance from the current location of the vehicle. ” We find that
the relevant teaching of Suman is the “Last Exit Warning System” shown in
figures 41 and 43 and described in columns 32 through 34, further we find that
Blaker contains a nearly identical teaching of a Last Exit Warning System” shown
in figures 1(a), 1(b) and 4 and described in column 4. While we agree with the
examiner that the distance to the closest service provider S1 must be within the
predetermined distance (distance to empty) when selected, we do not find that
the selection of S1 is based upon the service provider S1 being within the
predetermined distance. Rather, we find that both Suman and Blaker each teach
that the service provider S1 is selected when the distance to the second service
provider, S2, is greater then the distance to empty. If the distance, X, to the
second service provider is less than the distance to empty no selection is
made (see flow line 664 in figure 43 of Suman, line 64 in figure 4 of Blaker) i.e.
regardless of whether the distance to first service provider S1 is greater or less
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007