Appeal No. 2006-2850
Application No. 10/812,027
broad and encompasses installing the CPU and inertial sensor as two
separate modules or one. As discussed supra, we find that Kodama teaches
that navigation system can be moved from one vehicle to another, thus,
suggesting that the system is removably secured to a vehicle. As discussed
supra, Kodama teaches that the inertial sensor is removably mounted. Thus,
we find ample evidence to support the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23.
Appellant presents no arguments as to why claim 40 is separately
patentable from claim 23, accordingly we group claim 40 with claim 23
and similarly sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 40. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.67(c)(1)(vii).
Rejection of claim 24 through 28, 39, 41 through 44.
On page 17 of the Brief, Appellant argues that the combination of
Kamiya, Kodama, Ito and Avitan do not make obvious the subject matter of
claims 24 through 28, 39 and 41 through 44. Appellant argues that claims
24 through 29 depend upon claim 23 and are allowable for the reasons
discussed with respect to claim 23. Appellant states “[w]ith specific
reference to claims 26, 27, 39 and 41-42 the Examiner is referred to the
above discussion regarding claim 22.” Further, Appellant asserts that claims
43 and 44 ultimately depend upon claim 40 and are allowable for the reasons
discussed with respect to claim 40.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013