Appeal No. 2004-2198
Application No. 10/047,925
at page 6 of the principal brief on appeal.
Furthermore, appellant’s positions in the brief and reply brief as to
this feature are not well taken to begin with. In paragraph 18 at page 6 of
the appellant’s own specification, appellant appears to utilize prior art
mapping software to provide the claimed closed geographical area to the
extent that is recited in representative claim 1 on appeal. Appellant
appears to rely upon the well known windows-based operating system to
provide a basis within which a special program called a map-generation
program such as MapPoint operates. It is this prior art software that
appears to us in the ensuing pages of the disclosure to provide the basis of
the map 350 shown in Figures 3A-D.
The feature of “identifying at least one geographical unit within the
closed geographical area” is next argued by appellant in the principal brief.
In the context of the disclosure of pages 4 and 5 of the CACI Limited
Home Page document, at least national/regional/territorial boundaries are
therefore identified “within” the closed geographical area of the map.
Additionally, the identifiable national and regional boundaries may be
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007