Appeal No. 2005-2433
Application No. 10/259,789
Concerning the examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 10, 12, 22, 24, 34 and
36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Fujita in view of Ohmura, we note that appellant
has not separately argued this rejection with any reasonable degree of specificity,
choosing instead to merely argue that the disclosure and teachings of Ohmura do not
remedy the above argued failure of Fujita to disclose using a routing system to access
an origin and a destination in a routing graph representing a network of roads in which a
directed link of the routing graph is associated with a direction of travel along the directed
link from a staring node to an ending node, as recited in independent claims 1, 13 and
25. Having already found that argument unpersuasive, it follows that we will sustain the
examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 10, 12, 22, 24, 34 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a).
whether claim 25 of the present application is, in actuality, a “single means” claim and
therefore impermissible.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007