Appeal No. 2006-2850
Application No. 10/812,027
figure 2. Thus, Kodama teaches that the navigation device body includes all
of the elements claimed (a GPS receiver is a navigation sensor), but Kodama
does not teach how the navigational sensor unit is mounted to the car.
However, given the discussion of moving the system from one car to another
it is clear that the unit is removable.
Hollenberg teaches a “situation information system” a system which
makes use of a mobile computer which has location finding capabilities that
allow a user to navigate in unfamiliar cities. See Column 5, lines 12 through
27 and column 6, lines 31 through 49. The users can mount the devices in a
vehicle or carry the device to explore on foot. See column 6, lines 50
through 54. The device uses internal resources and when attached to a
vehicle through a bracket, item 40, is connected to the vehicle’s resources,
e.g. GPS antenna, radio frequency antenna, power supply etc. See figures 7,
8 and column 20, lines 35 through 45. We consider the bracket item 40 of
Hollenberg to meet the claimed docking station. Further, as Hollenberg
teaches that the portable device has a display and can be used to navigate
when not attached to the vehicle, we find that Hollenberg teaches that the
portable device contains a processor, map database and a navigation sensor.
Thus, it appears to us that Hollenberg teaches all of the limitations of claim
1. Nonetheless the Examiner has rejected claim 1 over the combination of
Kamiya, Kodama and Hollenberg.
We consider that one of skill in the art viewing Hollenberg, and
Kodama would consider modifying the device of Kamiya to include a
navigation sensor in the detachable unit as it would allow the user to use the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013