Appeal No. 2006-3323
Application No. 10/287,151
confidence interval for a user in transit from a source location
to a destination location. Particularly, at pages 3 and 4 of the
Appeal Brief, Appellant states that the following:
Nowhere does Schmier teach or suggest, alone or in
combination with the other references, what claim 1
recites- namely estimating and sending the time-of-
arrival-bounds for a confidence interval.
The Office is confusing this limitation with
Schmier which teaches “predicted time intervals between
adjacent transit stops.” Schmier’s predicted time
intervals, however, refer neither to a confidence
interval or time-of-arrival bounds, but rather to the
predicted amount of time between adjacent transit
stops. (Schmier does not define the term “predicted;”
however, those skilled in the art would likely
interpret this term to mean “expected.”)
To determine whether claim 1 is anticipated, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. We note that representative
claim 1 reads in part as follows:
[E]stimating the time-of-arrival bounds for said
mobile communications device at said destination for a
confidence interval based on: (a) said location, and
(b) at least one historical travel time statistic; and
sending the time-of-arrival bounds to said mobile
communication device.
At pages 4 and 5, paragraphs 27, Appellant’s specification
states the following:
[0027] At task 245, time-of-arrival metrics are
estimated based on the historical travel time data,
average speed, remaining distance to the destination,
weather information, and traffic information.
(Computation of the average speed and the remaining
distance to the destination is disclosed below in the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007