Appeal 2007-0967
Application 10/367,001
maps, each of which are selectable. Each depicts some form of an area of
interest and makes available to the user items of interest in and around the
particular region or vicinity of a selected area as shown in a different manner
in these figures. Figure 2 shows downtown Boston, Mass. and the
geographic vicinity within this downtown region or area. Bouve teaches that
for each identifiable “item of interest” there are correlated geographic
correspondences provided. A given area or region at one of these levels
depicts various distances of the type broadly set forth in claim 1 as a first
distance between points. Figure 2 also shows relative distances, like the
claimed second distance, which is in turn “based on” the first distances
within a given region or locational area/region. The discussion at column 6,
lines 55 through 60 indicates the ability of a user to “locate items of interest
within the geographic vicinity of the user and relative to the user’s current
location. The scope of the geographic vicinity is generally within walking
distance.” Thus, the artisan would well appreciate that the claimed first and
second distance are relatively illustrated and that the second distance is
determined by or based upon or within the first distances illustrated.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner rejecting all
claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013