Appeal No. 2006-0835
Application No. 10/320,024
We reverse the aforementioned rejections. We need to address only claim 1,
which is the sole independent claim. That claim requires a starting field including a
plurality of possible routes.
Hessing discloses a vehicle routing and guiding system comprising a central
server that determines the optimum route for a vehicle and transmits the route
piecewise to the vehicle so that the vehicle’s navigation system needs only a small
memory capacity (col. 3, lines 48-62; col. 4, lines 12-33 and 56-58; col. 5, lines 1-10).
The examiner argues that the appellants’ claim 1 merely requires that a plurality
of possible routes exist, and that Hessing’s digital map inherently includes a plurality of
possible routes (answer, pages 3-4).
The appellants’ claim 1 requires a starting field including a plurality of possible
routes. Thus, the examiner’s interpretation of the claim as merely requiring the
existence of a plurality of possible routes is incorrect. The examiner has not explained
how Hessing discloses or, alone or in combination with Mikkola, would have fairly
suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, such a starting field. The examiner,
therefore, has not carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of anticipation or
obviousness of the appellants’ claimed invention.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-6 and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over
Hessing, claims 3, 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hessing in view of Mikkola, and
claims 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Hessing, are reversed.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007