Appeal 2007-0370
Application 09/951,560
1 We therefore affirm this rejection as it applies to claim 9.
2 iii) Claim 10
3 The Appellant urges that Horvat fails to use satellites and is not
4 practical. (Br. 13). As noted above, neither of these arguments is based on
5 any persuasive evidence and are unpersuasive.
6 The Appellant further urges that Vaughn teaches away from the
7 claimed invention by intending the speed limit to be violated. (Br. 13-14).
8 As discussed above, this argument is without merit.
9 Finally, the Appellant urges that:
10 Both Vaughn and Horvat fail to disclose or suggest issuing tickets
11 when a speeding violation is detected via satellite. (Br. 14)
12
13 However, we find that Vaughn expressly describes reporting the
14 location and speed of the vehicle determined either by speedometer or GPS
15 (8:64-67) to law enforcement by using the GPS transmitting means 44.
16 (9:24-26). Vaughn also expressly states that the wireless link can also be
17 implemented by satellite link. (9:65-66).
18 This argument is therefore wholly without merit. We therefore affirm
19 this rejection as it applies to claim 10.
20 (iv) Claim 12
21 The Appellant again urges that
22 -Horvat fails to use satellites
23 -Horvat is not practical
24 -There is no disclosure in Vaughn of issuing a ticket
25 -Vaughn teaches away by encouraging speeding violations
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013