Appeal 2007-0370
Application 09/951,560
1 need be commercially viable. A reference need only enable what it
2 discloses, and patents are presumed to have an enabling disclosure.
3 Accordingly, this first argument is without persuasive merit.
4 Second, the Appellant urges that the invention of claim 1:
5 (1) uses satellite(s) in order to determine a location of the
6 vehicle, (2) determines a speed limit based on location
7 determined from satellite(s), (3) detects speed limit violations
8 based on the location given by satellite, and (4) uses satellite(s)
9 to cause tickets to be issued in response to the same. Horvat
10 fails to disclose or suggest each of these four aspects of claim 1.
11 (Br. 11: 12-17).
12
13 This argument is likewise without persuasive merit. Horvat is not
14 relied upon for those features. It is the combination of references which is
15 applied in the rejection, not the individual reference. Each of the aspects
16 which Horvat “fails to disclose or suggest” is found within Vaughn.
17 Vaughn describes using a GPS navigation computer to determine the
18 location and speed of a vehicle. (col. 2, ll. 14-15). The computer inputs the
19 maximum speed from the map database. (col. 2, ll. 15-16). While in one
20 embodiment the engine speed is limited, in another embodiment, using a
21 satellite link (col. 9, l. 65 - col. 10, l. 2), location and speed of a vehicle is
22 reported to law enforcement organizations. (col. 10, ll. 5-7). Local law
23 enforcement would then exercise its normal function of ticketing errant
24 drivers. Accordingly, this argument is also without merit.
25 The Appellant then argues that as Vaughn teaches one to exceed the
26 speed limit, Vaughn actually intends for the speed limit to be violated, and
27 teaches away from claim 1 which requires the issuance of tickets. It is urged
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013