Appeal No. 2006-2850
Application No. 10/812,027
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of all of the claims. As noted above, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 23 or 40. However,
as discussed above we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18
which recites a mobile computer with first and second vehicle data wherein
the module uses the first data when stored in a first vehicle and the second
when installed in a second vehicle. Claims 26, 27 and 39, contain similar
limitations, and therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 26, 27 and 39 for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 18.
However, claims 24, 25, and 41 through 44 do not contain limitations
directed to first and second data being used when the device is mounted in a
first or second vehicles. Claims 24, 25, and 41 through 44 are dependent
upon either claim 23 or claim 40 and recite the steps of propagating the
position of the vehicle after the CPU and inertial sensor are installed on the
vehicle. Unlike claim 22 which recites propagating the position of the
vehicle from the vehicle data, claims 24, 25 and 41 through 44 do not recite
the source of the position information. Thus, the scope of claims 24, 25 and
41 through 44 is broad and includes propagation of position data from other
sources, such as for example being propagated from the GPS receiver. We
find that paragraph 0027 of Kodama, discusses that one of the first steps of
finding a position of a vehicle is to receive signals from three or more
satellites and calculate the current position. In context one skilled in the art
would understand that this step is not performed until the system is installed
in a vehicle. Thus, we find that Kodama teaches the limitations of
propagating the position of the vehicle after the CPU and inertial sensor are
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013