Appeal No. 2006-2850
Application No. 10/812,027
detachable unit to navigate when not in the vehicle. Accordingly, we find
ample evidence of record to support the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
On page 13 of the Brief, Appellant asserts that the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 3, 5 through 17, 30, 31 and 33 through 38 should be
reversed for the same reasons asserted with respect to claim 1.
As discussed supra, Appellant’s arguments directed to claim 1 have
not convinced us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 5 through
17, 30, 31 and 33 through 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a).
Rejection of claims 18 through 22.
On page 13 of the Brief, Appellant argues that the combination of
Kamiya, Kodama and Avitan fails to render obvious the claimed subject
matter. On pages 13 and 14 of the Brief, Appellant presents arguments
similar to those discussed above with respect to the combination of Kamiya
and Kamiya. On page 14 of the Brief, Appellant argues:
[I]n Avitan the different data is stability criteria for a number of
different trucks in order to minimize the need for highly trained
personnel for installation. (Avitan at column 3, lines 43-51). The
Avitan system does not fairly envision installation of a computer
module in a first vehicle and subsequently in a second vehicle, rather
Avitan describes including vehicle data for both the first and second
vehicles in two computer modules, one of the computer modules
being installed in a first vehicle and the other installed in a second
vehicle. As such, a person of ordinary skill would not have been
motivated to combine Kamiya with Avitan . . . .
In response, the Examiner states, on page 15 of the Answer:
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013