Appeal No. 2004-2198
Application No. 10/047,925
through computer input devices to provide information for the system to
receive this information to the extent recited at the end of representative
claim 1 on appeal.
The positions set forth by the appellant and the examiner in the brief
and answer, to the extent they relate to various definitions, over
complicate the basic plain teachings of the reference as we have just
emphasized. The reference plainly teaches that the system has the
capability “to map” (top of page 5) and to therefore produce “a map.” In
an analogous manner, appellant argues at the top of page 7 of the
principal brief that the examiner has provided a definitional analysis “to
trace” rather than to produce “a trace.” This argument is misplaced since
the result of a tracing action in a verb form yields “a trace.”
Correspondingly, the examiner’s reliance upon mathematical set theory to
argue that a geographical area and geographical unit, as claimed, may be
spatially coextensive also over complicates the simple, straightforward
teachings of the reference.
We do, however, agree with the examiner’s view expressed at the
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007