Appeal No. 2006-2850
Application No. 10/812,027
We agree with Appellant’s description of the Kodama and Kamiya
references, however, we disagree with the Appellant’s argument that the
combination of Kodama, Kamiya and Hollenberg does not render the
claimed subject matter obvious. We note that Appellant’s arguments have
not discussed the teachings of the Hollenberg reference. As discussed infra
we find that Hollenberg teaches many of claimed features which Appellant
assert are absent from Kodama and Kamiya. Claim 1 recites a “computer
module” which includes a processor, map database and “at least one
navigational sensor.” Appellant’s specification, on page 1, identifies that
navigation sensors include GPS receivers, accelerometer, gyros, compass
etc. Claim 1 further recites a “docking station, said computer module
selectively matable with said docking station.”
As discussed by the Examiner and Appellant, Kamiya teaches a
vehicle navigation system, which makes use of a processor, navigation
sensors, and a map database. See abstract and figures 1 and 2. Kamiya
teaches several arrangements of the components, as shown in figures 1, 13,
14 and 30. There is a detachable unit with a MMECU (multi-media
electronic control unit, which we consider to meet the claimed processor)
and in each of these arrangements the navigational sensors are mounted on
the vehicle and not in the detachable unit. Further in figure 31, Kamiya
teaches that all components are mounted to the vehicle. Kamiya states that
the reason that the gyro sensors (i.e. an inertial navigation sensor which is
one of the two types of sensors used) are mounted on the vehicle and not the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013