Appeal No. 2005-2433
Application No. 10/259,789
interchanges on a routing graph like that in Fujita would each represent a “directed link,”
even though the nodes, intersections or interchanges involved may be connected
by only one line (or edge) of Hierarchy #1 representing Route 95 on the routing graph.
Thus, in traveling from an origin in Washington, DC to a destination in Baltimore, MD the
system and method of Fujita would use at least one “directed link” in a direction of travel
along Route 95N in determining a preferred route from the origin to the desired
destination. Moreover, the examiner also points to the disclosure in Fujita concerning
road data representing “one way” roads or streets, and concludes that a “one way” link or
road between two intersections or nodes on a routing graph therein would also represent
a “directed link” associated with a direction of travel along the directed link from a starting
node/intersection to an ending node/intersection and would be useable to determine a
preferred route from an origin to a destination on the routing graph.
We agree with the examiner. For example, in arriving at the highlighted preferred
route shown in Figure 11A of Fujita, we are of the view that the system and method
therein must of necessity have looked at each road or link of the preferred route between
each node/intersection as being a “directed link” associated with a direction of travel
along the directed link from a starting node/intersection to an ending node/intersection
and utilized such directed links to determine the highlighted overall preferred route from
the origin seen therein to the destination shown.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007