Appeal 2007-0370
Application 09/951,560
1 -Vaughn and Horvat fail to disclose or suggest issuing tickets
2 when traffic violations are detected via satellite. (Br. 15-16).
3 As discussed above, we have found none of these contentions
4 meritorious. We therefore affirm this rejection as it applies to claim 12.
5 (v) Claim 13
6 The Appellant again urges that:
7 -Vaughn and Horvat fail to disclose or suggest issuing tickets
8 when traffic violations are detected via satellite. (Br. 16-17).
9 As discussed above, we have found this contention meritless. We
10 therefore affirm this rejection as it applies to claim 13.
11 (vi) Claim 14
12 The Appellant’s entire argument regarding this claim is reproduced
13 below:
14 Claim 14 requires “determining, based upon (a) a speed at which the
15 vehicle is being driven, (b) stored speed limit information, and (c)
16 location of the vehicle on Earth based upon the positional signals
17 received from the satellites, that a notification of traffic law infraction
18 or traffic ticket should be issued to an owner or driver of the vehicle”
19 The cited art fails to disclose or suggest this aspect of claim 14. (Br.
20 17).
21
22 First, as noted above, this “argument” is not “argument” within the
23 meaning of the Board’s rules. An argument should explain why the
24 Examiner's contrary finding is wrong.
25 Second, Vaughn describes (a) determining a vehicle speed (8:64-67);
26 accessing a (b) downloaded map data into a memory unit 50 (8:56-58)
27 including a speed limit database (8:1 and 47-51); (c) determining the
28 location of the vehicle (8:47-48), and comparing the speed to the maximum
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013