Appeal No. 2006-2850
Application No. 10/812,027
through 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). However, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 18 through 22, 26, 27, 29 and 39 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Rejection of claims 1, 3, 5 through 17, 30, 31 and 33 through 38.
Appellant argues, on page 11 of the Brief, that the combination of
Kamiya, Kodama and Hollenberg fails to render obvious the claimed subject
matter. Specifically, Appellant argues that Kamiya while teaching a
detachable unit as part of a navigation system fails to teach that the
detachable unit includes a navigation sensor or a docking station as claimed.
Further, Appellant argues that the Examiner has not shown any teaching or
rationale as to why one would combine Kodama with Kamiya or Hollenberg.
On pages 12 through 13 of the Brief, Appellant argues that the Examiner has
improperly interpreted the claim. Appellant asserts that the claim recites that
the computer module is selectively matable with a docking station and
includes a navigation sensor. Appellant asserts that Kodama describes a
navigation sensor unit selectively mountable to a base, and the central
processor is part of the base unit. Appellant concludes:
Even assuming arguendo the combination of Kodama with Kamiya,
i.e., assuming a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated
to include a removable navigation sensor according to Kodama in the
system of Kamiya, the Examiner still has failed to render obvious the
present claimed subject matter. A person of ordinary skill would, at
most, have an additional removable component, i.e., a removable
navigation sensor according to Kodama, above and beyond the
detachable unit and vehicle-side unit of Kamiya. This is not the same
as a computer module including a navigational sensor as claimed in
claim 1.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013