Appeal No. 2005-2668
Application No. 09/765,823
We therefore find no error in the rejection of representative claim 1.1 We thus
sustain the rejection of claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-20, 31-45, and 47-73.
Appellants do not separately argue the rejection over Hertel, Johnson, and
Mansell. Instant claim 4 recites that the position determination device comprises an
accelerometer. Mansell teaches (col. 9, l. 67 - col. 10, l. 18) that an accelerometer may
advantageously replace or supplement a GPS receiver. We thus sustain the rejection
of claim 4, and of claims 5, 10, and 46 also rejected.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-20 and 31-73 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
1 We observe that, under an alternative and reasonable interpretation of claim 1, the
“communication interface,” with respect to “the information,” need only be capable of transmitting and
receiving such information. The claim does not positively set forth a “central agency,” which is disclosed
as processing received information and transmitting further information in return. The “communication
interface” that is set forth makes no decisions with respect to the meaning of the information. See, e.g.,
original claim 1; Figure 1, element 39.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007