Appeal No. 2006-2850
Application No. 10/812,027
store on the detachable unit, position data for two vehicles. Further, while
we find that Avitan teaches a computer mounted on a vehicle which has data
files for many types of vehicles, Avitan is concerned with control for a
forklift and has no discussion of the data being used in conjunction with a
navigation system. Thus, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that
independent claim 18 is obvious over Kamiya, Kodama and Avitan.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 18 or the claims dependent thereupon, claims 19 through 22.
Rejection of claims 23 and 40.
Appellant argues, on page 16 of the Brief, that the arguments directed
to the rejection of claim 1 as they relate to Kamiya and Kodama also apply
to the rejection of claim 23. Further, Appellant argues that Ito teaches a
simplified assembly process for an instrument dashboard. Appellant
concludes that none of references teaches removably securing the CPU in a
second vehicle.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Initially we note
that independent claim 23 has a different scope than claim 1. Claim 23
recites:
A method for using a vehicle navigation system including the steps of:
a. removably securing a CPU and inertial sensor in a first vehicle;
b. removing the CPU and at least one inertial sensor from the first
vehicle;
c. after step b., removably securing the CPU and the at least one
inertial sensor in a second vehicle.
Unlike claim 1, claim 23 recites no limitation which requires that the CPU
and navigation sensor are in the same module. Rather, claim 23 is a method
claim, and recites securing the CPU and the inertial sensor. This step is
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013