Application No. 10/667,026
`Amendment dated October 4, 2006
`Reply to Office Action of August 8, 2006
`
`Listing of the Claims:
`
`This listing of claims will replace all prior versions, and listings, of claims in the
`
`application:
`
`CLAIMS:
`
`Please amend claims 52 and 53, as follows:
`
`1.
`
`(Previously Presented) A method for marine navigation, comprising:
`
`receiving one or more preselected conditions from a user;
`
`identifying a potential waypoint; and
`
`performing a marine route calculation algorithm to route a course between a first
`
`location and the potential waypoint avoiding the preselected conditions,
`
`including analyzing cartographic data between the first location and the
`
`potential waypoint and re-routing the course to avoid the preselected
`
`conditions by identifying one or more non-user selected waypoints.
`
`2-4.
`
`(Canceled)
`
`2
`
`FLIR-1002.200
`
`
`Amendment dated October 4, 2006
`Reply to Office Action of August 8, 2006
`
`Listing of the Claims:
`
`This listing of claims will replace all prior versions, and listings, of claims in the
`
`application:
`
`CLAIMS:
`
`Please amend claims 52 and 53, as follows:
`
`1.
`
`(Previously Presented) A method for marine navigation, comprising:
`
`receiving one or more preselected conditions from a user;
`
`identifying a potential waypoint; and
`
`performing a marine route calculation algorithm to route a course between a first
`
`location and the potential waypoint avoiding the preselected conditions,
`
`including analyzing cartographic data between the first location and the
`
`potential waypoint and re-routing the course to avoid the preselected
`
`conditions by identifying one or more non-user selected waypoints.
`
`2-4.
`
`(Canceled)
`
`2
`
`FLIR-1002.200
`
`
`
`Application No. 10/667,026
`Amendment dated October 4, 2006
`Reply to Office Action of August 8, 2006
`
`5.
`
`(Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, further including determining the first
`
`location on the course based on a signal from a global positioning system (GPS); and
`
`analyzing cartographic data for a predetermined area around the first location for
`
`preselected conditions.
`
`6.
`
`(Original) The method of claim 5, further including providing an alert signal when
`
`the analyzed cartographic data for the predetermined area around the first location
`
`includes preselected conditions.
`
`7.
`
`(Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, further including providing an alert
`
`signal when the analyzed cartographic data between the first location and the potential
`
`waypoint includes preselected conditions.
`
`8.
`
`(Original) The method of claim 7, wherein providing the alert signal includes
`
`emitting an audio alert.
`
`9.
`
`(Original) The method of claim 7, wherein providing the alert signal includes
`
`displaying a visual alert.
`
`10.
`
`(Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, the preselected conditions including
`
`a weather condition.
`
`3
`
`FLIR-1002.201
`
`
`
`Application No. 10/667,026
`Amendment dated October 4, 2006
`Reply to Office Action of August 8, 2006
`
`11-18. (Canceled)
`
`19.
`
`(Previously Presented) A method for marine navigation, comprising:
`
`receiving one or more preselected conditions from a user;
`
`receiving a user defined graphical filter area from the user;
`
`identifying the user defined graphical filter area on a display;
`
`analyzing cartographic data only within the user defined graphical filter area for the
`
`preselected conditions; and
`
`providing an alert signal when cartographic data within the user defined graphical
`
`filter area indicate the preselected conditions.
`
`20.
`
`(Original) The method of claim 19, wherein identifying the user defined graphical
`
`filter area includes repositioning the user defined graphical filter area.
`
`21.
`
`(Original) The method of claim 19, wherein analyzing cartographic data further
`
`comprises acquiring cartographic data from a global positioning system (GPS).
`
`4
`
`FLIR-1002.202
`
`
`
`Application No. 10/667,026
`Amendment dated October 4, 2006
`Reply to Office Action of August 8, 2006
`
`22.
`
`(Original) The method of claim 19, further including receiving preselected conditions
`
`selected from the group of land, water depth, rock(s), sandbars, shelves, tide condition,
`
`tidal data, wind conditions, weather conditions, ice, above-water obstacles, underwater
`
`obstacles, type of water bottom, and prohibited areas.
`
`23.
`
`(Previously Presented) A computer readable medium having a set of computer
`
`readable instructions, the set of computer readable instructions comprising instructions for:
`
`receiving one or more preselected conditions from a user;
`
`identifying a potential waypoint upon a first event; and
`
`performing a marine route calculation algorithm to analyze a course between a first
`
`location and the potential waypoint avoiding the preselected conditions,
`
`including analyzing cartographic data between the first location and the
`
`potential waypoint and re-routing the course to avoid the preselected
`
`conditions by identifying one or more non-user selected waypoints.
`
`24-26. (Canceled)
`
`27.
`
`(Original) The computer readable medium of claim 23, further including determining
`
`the first location on the course based on a signal from a global positioning system (GPS);
`
`and analyzing cartographic data for a predetermined area around the first location for
`
`preselected conditions.
`
`5
`
`FLIR-1002.203
`
`
`
`Application No. 10/667,026
`Amendment dated October 4, 2006
`Reply to Office Action of August 8, 2006
`
`28.
`
`(Original) The computer readable medium of claim 27, further including providing an
`
`alert signal when the analyzed cartographic data for the predetermined area around the
`
`first location includes preselected conditions.
`
`29.
`
`(Original) The computer readable medium of claim 23, wherein analyzing
`
`cartographic data further comprises acquiring cartographic data from a global positioning
`
`system (GPS).
`
`30.
`
`(Original) The computer readable medium of claim 23, further including providing an
`
`alert signal when the analyzed cartographic data between the first location and the
`
`potential waypoint includes preselected conditions.
`
`31.
`
`(Original) The computer readable medium of claim 30, wherein providing the alert
`
`signal includes emitting a signal for an audio alert.
`
`32.
`
`(Original) The computer readable medium of claim 30, wherein providing the alert
`
`signal includes displaying a visual alert.
`
`33.
`
`(Previously Presented) The computer readable medium of claim 23, the preselected
`
`conditions including a water depth.
`
`6
`
`FLIR-1002.204
`
`
`
`Application No. 10/667,026
`Amendment dated October 4, 2006
`Reply to Office Action of August 8, 2006
`
`34.
`
`(Previously Presented) An electronic marine navigation device, comprising:
`
`a processor;
`
`a user interface operatively coupled to the processor, wherein the user interface
`
`receives one or more preselected conditions from a user;
`
`a location input operatively coupled to the processor, wherein the location input
`
`receives a first location and a potential waypoint separate from the first
`
`location; and
`
`a memory operatively coupled to the processor and the location input, the memory
`
`having cartographic data including data related to the preselected conditions,
`
`wherein the processor operates on a marine route calculation algorithm to
`
`analyze a course between the first location and the potential waypoint in view
`
`of the preselected conditions of the cartographic data and re-route the
`
`course to avoid the preselected conditions by identifying one or more non-
`
`user selected waypoints.
`
`35-37. (Canceled)
`
`7
`
`FLIR-1002.205
`
`
`
`Application No. 10/667,026
`Amendment dated October 4, 2006
`Reply to Office Action of August 8, 2006
`
`38.
`
`(Previously Presented) The electronic marine navigation device of claim 34, further
`
`including a receiver for a global positioning system (GPS) operatively coupled to the
`
`processor, wherein the processor determines the first location on the course based on a
`
`signal received from the GPS, and analyzes cartographic data for a predetermined area
`
`around the first location for preselected conditions.
`
`39.
`
`(Original) The electronic marine navigation device of claim 38, wherein the
`
`processor provides an alert signal when the analyzed cartographic data for the
`
`predetermined area around the first location includes preselected conditions.
`
`40.
`
`(Previously Presented) The electronic marine navigation device of claim 34,
`
`wherein the processor provides an alert signal when the analyzed cartographic data
`
`between the first location and the potential waypoint includes preselected conditions.
`
`41.
`
`(Original) The electronic marine navigation device of claim 34, wherein the location
`
`input receives a user defined graphical filter area, and wherein the processor operates on
`
`the marine route calculation algorithm to analyze cartographic data within the defined
`
`graphical filter area for preselected conditions and wherein the processor provides an alert
`
`signal when the analyzed cartographic data for the user defined graphical filter area
`
`includes preselected conditions.
`
`8
`
`FLIR-1002.206
`
`
`
`Application No. 10/667,026
`Amendment dated October 4, 2006
`Reply to Office Action of August 8, 2006
`
`42.
`
`(Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, wherein both the first location and
`
`the potential waypoint are independent of a current location of a device implementing the
`
`method.
`
`43.
`
`(Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the
`
`course is unrelated to a current heading of a device implementing the method.
`
`44.
`
`(Previously Presented) A method for marine navigation, comprising:
`
`identifying a potential waypoint; and
`
`performing a marine route calculation algorithm to analyze a course between a first
`
`location and the potential waypoint in order to avoid preselected conditions
`
`received from a user and re-route the course to avoid the preselected
`
`conditions by identifying one or more non-user selected waypoints.
`
`45.
`
`(Previously Presented) A method for marine navigation, comprising:
`
`receiving indication of a minimum water depth from a user;
`
`identifying a potential waypoint; and
`
`performing a marine route calculation algorithm to route a course between a first
`
`location and the potential waypoint avoiding water depth less than the
`
`minimum water depth by identifying one or more non-user selected
`
`waypoints.
`
`9
`
`FLIR-1002.207
`
`
`
`Application No. 10/667,026
`Amendment dated October 4, 2006
`Reply to Office Action of August 8, 2006
`
`46.
`
`(Previously Presented) The method of claim 45, displaying a visual indication of
`
`places along the calculated course where the water depth is expected to approach the
`
`minimum water depth.
`
`47.
`
`(Previously Presented) A method for marine navigation, comprising:
`
`receiving indication of a minimum water depth from a user;
`
`displaying marine cartographic data;
`
`receiving indication of a potential waypoint;
`
`displaying a substantially straight line between a first location and the potential
`
`waypoint, wherein the line depicts both where the water depth is expected to
`
`be greater than the minimum water depth and where the water depth is
`
`expected to be less than the minimum water depth, and wherein the line
`
`highlights where the water depth is expected to be less than the minimum
`
`water depth; and
`
`performing a marine route calculation algorithm to route a course between the first
`
`location and the potential waypoint avoiding water depth less than the
`
`minimum water depth.
`
`10
`
`FLIR-1002.208
`
`
`
`Application No. 10/667,026
`Amendment dated October 4, 2006
`Reply to Office Action of August 8, 2006
`
`48.
`
`(Previously Presented) A method for marine navigation, comprising:
`
`displaying marine cartographic data;
`
`receiving indication of a potential waypoint;
`
`displaying a substantially straight line between a first location and the potential
`
`waypoint, wherein the line distinguishes where the water depth is expected to
`
`be greater than a preset minimum water depth from where the water depth is
`
`expected to be less than the minimum water depth; and
`
`performing a marine route calculation algorithm to route a course between the first
`
`location and the potential waypoint avoiding water depth less than the
`
`minimum water depth.
`
`49.
`
`(Previously Presented) The method of claim 48, wherein the minimum water depth
`
`is user selectable.
`
`50.
`
`(Previously Presented) The method of claim 48, wherein the line is depicted in a
`
`first manner where the water depth is expected to be greater than the minimum water
`
`depth and the line is depicted in a second manner where the water depth is expected to be
`
`less than the minimum water depth.
`
`51.
`
`(Previously Presented) The method of claim 48, wherein the line is displayed on the
`
`marine cartographic data in a plan view.
`
`11
`
`FLIR-1002.209
`
`
`
`Application No. 10/667,026
`Amendment dated October 4, 2006
`Reply to Office Action of August 8, 2006
`
`52.
`
`(Currently Amended) The method of claim [[48]] 50, wherein the first manner is
`
`different from the second manner, such that the line itself is displayed differently in the first
`
`manner compared with the second manner.
`
`53.
`
`(Currently Amended) The method of claim [[48]] 50, wherein the first manner
`
`comprises displaying the line in a first color and the second manner comprises displaying
`
`the line in a second color different from the first color.
`
`54.
`
`(Previously Presented) A method for marine navigation, comprising:
`
`displaying marine cartographic data;
`
`receiving indication of a potential waypoint; and
`
`displaying a substantially straight line on the marine cartographic data between a
`
`first location and the potential waypoint, wherein the line highlights where the
`
`water depth is expected to be less than a minimum water depth.
`
`55.
`
`(Previously Presented) The method of claim 54, further including the step of
`
`performing a marine route calculation algorithm to route a course from the first location to
`
`the potential waypoint avoiding areas where the water depth is expected to be less than
`
`the minimum water depth by identifying one or more non-user selected waypoints.
`
`12
`
`FLIR-1002.210
`
`
`
`Application No. 10/667,026
`Amendment dated October 4, 2006
`Reply to Office Action of August 8, 2006
`
`56.
`
`(Previously Presented) The method of claim 55, further including the step of
`
`displaying the course from the first location to the potential waypoint via the non-user
`
`selected waypoints.
`
`57.
`
`(Previously Presented) The method of claim 54, wherein the line is displayed in a
`
`different manner where the water depth is expected to be less than a minimum water
`
`depth.
`
`58.
`
`(Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, further including the step of
`
`displaying the course from the first location to the potential waypoint via the non-user
`
`selected waypoints.
`
`59.
`
`(Previously Presented) The computer readable medium of claim 23, further
`
`including instructions for displaying the course from the first location to the potential
`
`waypoint via the non-user selected waypoints.
`
`60.
`
`(Previously Presented) The electronic marine navigation device of claim 34, further
`
`including a display for displaying the course from the first location to the potential waypoint
`
`via the non-user selected waypoints.
`
`13
`
`FLIR-1002.211
`
`
`
`Application No. 10/667,026
`Amendment dated October 4, 2006
`Reply to Office Action of August 8, 2006
`
`61.
`
`(Previously Presented) The method of claim 44, further including the step of
`
`displaying the course from the first location to the potential waypoint via the non-user
`
`selected waypoints.
`
`62.
`
`(Previously Presented) The method of claim 45, further including the step of
`
`displaying the course from the first location to the potential waypoint via the non-user
`
`selected waypoints.
`
`63.
`
`(Previously Presented) The method of claim 47, wherein the step of performing a
`
`marine route calculation algorithm includes identifying one or more non-user selected
`
`waypoints.
`
`64.
`
`(Previously Presented) The method of claim 63, further including the step of
`
`displaying the course from the first location to the potential waypoint via the non-user
`
`selected waypoints.
`
`65.
`
`(Previously Presented) The method of claim 47, wherein the line is displayed in a
`
`first manner where the water depth is expected to be greater than the preset minimum
`
`water depth and a second manner, different from the first manner, where the water depth is
`
`expected to be less than the minimum water depth.
`
`14
`
`FLIR-1002.212
`
`
`
`Application No. 10/667,026
`Amendment dated October 4, 2006
`Reply to Office Action of August 8, 2006
`
`66.
`
`(Previously Presented) The method of claim 48, wherein the step of performing a
`
`marine route calculation algorithm includes identifying one or more non-user selected
`
`waypoints.
`
`67.
`
`(Previously Presented) The method of claim 66, further including the step of
`
`displaying the course from the first location to the potential waypoint via the non-user
`
`selected waypoints.
`
`15
`
`FLIR-1002.213
`
`
`
`Application No. 10/667,026
`Amendment dated October 4, 2006
`Reply to Office Action of August 8, 2006
`
`REMARKS:
`
`Status Of Claims
`
`Claims 1, 5-10, 19-23, 27-34, and 38-67 were previously pending in the application.
`
`Claims 52 and 53 have been amended. Thus, claims 1, 5-10, 19-23, 27-34, and 38-67 are
`
`currently pending in the application with claims 1, 19, 23, 34, 44, 45, 47, 48, and 54 being
`
`independent.
`
`Office Action
`
`In the Office Action, the Examiner rejected claims 52 and 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
`
`second paragraph. Claims 52 and 53 have been amended to obviate this ground of
`
`rejection. Therefore, this amendment at least places the application in a better condition
`
`for appeal. Thus, Applicant respectfully requests that this amendment be entered after
`
`Final Action.
`
`The Examiner also rejected claims 19, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated Bailey et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,873,676. The Examiner also rejected claims 1,
`
`5-10, 23, 27-32, 34, 38-40, 42-44, 58-61, 66, and 67 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Fujimoto et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2004/0006423 (Fujimoto
`
`'423) in view of Michaelson et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,734,808. The Examiner also rejected
`
`claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bailey in view of Fujimoto
`
`'423. The Examiner also rejected claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Fujimoto '423 and Michaelson, in view of Tobin Jr., U.S. Patent No. 4,323,992. The
`
`16
`
`FLIR-1002.214
`
`
`
`Application No. 10/667,026
`Amendment dated October 4, 2006
`Reply to Office Action of August 8, 2006
`
`Examiner also rejected claim 41 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Fujimoto '423 and Michaelson in view of Bailey. The Examiner also rejected claims 45, 46,
`
`and 62 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fujimoto '423 and Michaelson
`
`in view of Walsh et al., U.S. Patent No. 3,886,487. The Examiner also rejected claims 47-
`
`57 and 63-65 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fujimoto et al., U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 2004/0003958 (Fujimoto '958), in view of Fujimoto '423 and
`
`Michaelson. Applicant respectfully submits that the currently pending claims distinguish
`
`the present invention from both Fujimoto references, Tobin, Bailey, Michaelson, Walsh,
`
`and the other prior art references of record, taken alone or in combination with each other.
`
`Anticipation
`
`"A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is
`
`found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." MPEP §
`
`2131, citing Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d
`
`1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). More specifically, "Federal Circuit decisions repeatedly
`
`emphasize that anticipation (lack of novelty) is established only if (1) all the elements of an
`
`invention, as stated in a patent claim, (2) are identically set forth, (3) in a single prior art
`
`reference". Chisum on Patents§ 3.02. See also Gechter v. Davidson, 43 USPQ2d 1030,
`
`1032 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, every limitation of a claim must identically
`
`appear in a single prior art reference for it to anticipate the claim.").
`
`Claim 19 recites "analyzing cartographic data only within the user defined graphical
`
`17
`
`FLIR-1002.215
`
`
`
`Application No. 10/667,026
`Amendment dated October 4, 2006
`Reply to Office Action of August 8, 2006
`
`filter area for the preselected conditions". The Examiner mistakenly asserts that this
`
`limitation is disclosed by Bailey in column 3, lines 26-36 and 46-48. However, column 3,
`
`lines 26-29 state "[a]utomatic display scale changing is provided in response to the
`
`detected bottom going off-scale, or in response to the detected bottom rising to within a
`
`predetermined depth". Therefore, Bailey actually rather clearly teaches a system for
`
`automatically redefining a display area based on changing water depth. In other words,
`
`rather than analyzing data only within a user defined area, Bailey teaches automatically
`
`redefining some user defined display area. In fact, on page 14 of the Final Office Action,
`
`the Examiner acknowledges "Bailey discloses an automatic display scale changing".
`
`Furthermore, Bailey analyzes the entirety of this automatically redefined display area for
`
`target data or sonar returns.
`
`In column 3, lines 46-48, Bailey goes on to suggest user "selection of an area of
`
`interest" to be displayed. The Examiner appears to be focusing on this "customizable
`
`(user-defined)" display screen. Page 14 of the Final Office Action. However, a distinction
`
`must be drawn between what is displayed and what is analyzed. Bailey teaches only
`
`customizing a display. In fact, Bailey is completely devoid of any suggestion of "analyzing
`
`cartographic data on/ywithin the user defined graphical filter area", emphasis added. At
`
`best, lines 46-48 can only suggest displaying some limited area of interest.
`
`In fact, Bailey doesn't teach "analyzing cartographic data", emphasis added, at all.
`
`Rather, as discussed above, Bailey teaches analyzing target data or sonar returns.
`
`Furthermore, Bailey must analyze all of the received target data or sonar returns. These
`
`18
`
`FLIR-1002.216
`
`
`
`Application No. 10/667,026
`Amendment dated October 4, 2006
`Reply to Office Action of August 8, 2006
`
`are important distinctions in that Bailey's sonar signals, by their very nature, must pass
`
`completely through a predefined space under a boat. This space is predefined by the
`
`transducer itself. The only limits that can be imposed on this space are related to the
`
`maximum depth that the sonar signals reach. This is a function of transducer design and
`
`underwater obstacles, neither of which is under the user's control. In other words, the user
`
`simply cannot define where the sonar signals go, and therefore cannot define any area,
`
`and Bailey's device therefore cannot analyze only a portion of the returns. Simply put,
`
`Bailey cannot be said to suggest analyzing data only within a user defined area, much less
`
`"analyzing cartographic data only within the user defined graphical filter area for the
`
`preselected conditions", as claimed. As a result, Bailey simply fails to disclose, suggest or
`
`make obvious "analyzing cartographic data only within the user defined graphical filter area
`
`for the preselected conditions" as claimed in claim 19.
`
`Obviousness
`
`Obviousness can be a problematic basis for rejection because the Examiner, in
`
`deciding that a feature is obvious, has the benefit of the applicant's disclosure as a
`
`blueprint and guide.
`
`In contrast, one with ordinary skill in the art would have no such
`
`guide, in which light even an exceedingly complex solution may seem easy or obvious.
`
`Furthermore, once an obviousness rejection has been made, the applicant is in the
`
`exceedingly difficult position of having to prove a negative proposition (i.e., non-
`
`obviousness) in order to overcome the rejection.
`
`19
`
`FLIR-1002.217
`
`
`
`Application No. 10/667,026
`Amendment dated October 4, 2006
`Reply to Office Action of August 8, 2006
`
`For these reasons, the law places upon the Examiner the initial burden of
`
`establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
`
`If the Examiner fails to establish the
`
`requisite prima facie case, the rejection is improper and will be overturned. In re Rijckaert,
`
`9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 U.S.P.Q.2d 1955 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Only if the Examiner's burden is
`
`met does the burden shift to the Applicant to provide evidence to refute the rejection.
`
`In meeting this initial burden, the Examiner "cannot use hindsight reconstruction to
`
`pick and choose among isolated disclosures in the prior art to deprecate the claimed
`
`invention." In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1075, 5 U.S.P.Q.2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Thus,
`
`the Examiner is required to perform the "critical step" of casting his or her mind back to the
`
`time of invention, to consider the thinking of one of ordinary skill in the art, guided only by
`
`the prior art references and the then-accepted wisdom in the field. See, e.g., W. L. Gore &
`
`Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 U.S.P.Q. 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
`
`Rejections on obviousness grounds also cannot be sustained by mere conclusory
`
`statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
`
`underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,
`
`988, 78 U.S.P.Q.2d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The factual inquiry performed by the Examiner
`
`in issuing an obviousness rejection must be thorough and searching. McGinley v. Franklin
`
`Sports, Inc., 262 F.3d 1339, 1351-52, 60 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2001 ). The
`
`prohibition against conclusory examination is as much rooted in the Administrative
`
`Procedure Act, which ensures due process and non-arbitrary decision-making, as it is in
`
`§ 103. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988.
`
`20
`
`FLIR-1002.218
`
`
`
`Application No. 10/667,026
`Amendment dated October 4, 2006
`Reply to Office Action of August 8, 2006
`
`Three criteria must be satisfied by the Examiner in order to establish a prima facie
`
`case of obviousness: (1) there must be some suggestion or motivation, either in the
`
`references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, to modify the reference or combine their teachings; (2) there must be a reasonable
`
`expectation of success; and (3) the combination of references must teach or suggest all
`
`the claim limitations. See MPEP § 706.02(j), citing In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493, 20
`
`U.S.P.Q.2d 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1991 ). This "motivation-suggestion-teaching" requirement
`
`protects against the entry of hindsight into the obviousness analysis, a problem which
`
`§ 103 was meant to confront. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988.
`
`Consequently, an Examiner's mere identification in the prior art of each individual
`
`element claimed is insufficient to defeat the patentability of a claimed invention without a
`
`proper suggestion to combine or modify the elements. In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1357,
`
`47 U.S.P.Q.2d 1453 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The fact that references can be combined or
`
`modified does not render the resultant combination obvious unless the prior art also
`
`suggests the desirability of the combination. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ
`
`1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
`
`In presenting the suggestion or motivation to combine prior art references, the
`
`Examiner may not resort to broad and conclusory statements; as such statements are not
`
`"evidence" of anything. In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 U.S.P.Q.2d 1313 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2000). The suggestion to make the claimed combination must be found in the prior art, not
`
`in the applicant's disclosure. In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d at 490.
`
`If the Examiner's proposed
`
`21
`
`FLIR-1002.219
`
`
`
`Application No. 10/667,026
`Amendment dated October 4, 2006
`Reply to Office Action of August 8, 2006
`
`combination renders the prior art invention unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, or
`
`changes its principal of operation, there can be no suggestion or motivation to form the
`
`combination-and thus no prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143.01; In re
`
`Gordon, 733 F.2d at 902.
`
`Claims 1, 23, 34, 44, and 45, stand rejected under various combinations of Fujimoto
`
`'423, Michaelson, and Walsh. Claim 1 recites "performing a marine route calculation
`
`algorithm to route a course between a first location and the potential waypoint avoiding the
`
`preselected conditions, including analyzing cartographic data between the first location and
`
`the potential waypoint and re-routing the course to avoid the preselected conditions by
`
`identifying one or more non-user selected waypoints". Similarly, claim 23 recites
`
`"performing a marine route calculation algorithm to analyze a course between a first
`
`location and the potential waypoint avoiding the preselected conditions, including analyzing
`
`cartographic data between the first location and the potential waypoint and re-routing the
`
`course to avoid the preselected conditions by identifying one or more non-user selected
`
`waypoints". Claim 34 recites "wherein the processor operates on a marine route
`
`calculation algorithm to analyze a course between the first location and the potential
`
`waypoint in view of the preselected conditions of the cartographic data and re-route the
`
`course to avoid the preselected conditions by identifying one or more non-user selected
`
`waypoints". Claim 44 recites "performing a marine route calculation algorithm to analyze a
`
`course between a first location and the potential waypoint in order to avoid preselected
`
`conditions received from a user and re-route the course to avoid the preselected conditions
`
`22
`
`FLIR-1002.220
`
`
`
`Application No. 10/667,026
`Amendment dated October 4, 2006
`Reply to Office Action of August 8, 2006
`
`by identifying one or more non-user selected waypoints". Claim 45 recites "performing a
`
`marine route calculation algorithm to route a course between a first location and the
`
`potential waypoint avoiding water depth less than the minimum water depth by identifying
`
`one or more non-user selected waypoints".
`
`In contrast, the Examiner acknowledges that "Fujimoto discloses identifying user
`
`waypoints ... but does not disclose non-user waypoints". Page 4 of the Final Office
`
`Action. To cure this defect, the Examiner mistakenly asserts that "Michaelson, on the other
`
`hand discloses re-routing the course by identifying one or more non-user waypoints". Page
`
`4 of the Final Office Action. In supporting this assertion, the Examiner points to column 24
`
`lines 41-50 and 55-64. The Examiner also points to column 13, line 56, through column
`
`14, line 4.
`
`However, column 24 clearly states that Michaelson's invention merely "alerts the
`
`crew to a new heading to steer or engine setting to avoid collisions". Column 24, lines 38-
`
`41. Specifically, column 24, lines 57-58, state an "alternate track PT' is first generated by
`
`incrementing the ship's heading by [a] nominal step size". Columns 13 and 14, on the
`
`other hand, merely disclose providing warnings such as "go shallow" to avoid grounding a
`
`submarine. Thus, Michaelson only suggests a heading and/or depth change to avoid an
`
`obstacle.
`
`In fact, Michaelson is devoid of any suggestion of "identifying one or more
`
`non-user selected waypoints", emphasis added, as claimed.
`
`Walsh doesn't even suggest an alternate heading/depth. Specifically, as stated in
`
`column 9, lines 6-10, Walsh merely discloses transmitting "as signal to the alarm 188 which
`
`23
`
`FLIR-1002.221
`
`
`
`Application No. 10/667,026
`Amendment dated October 4, 2006
`Reply to Office Action of August 8, 2006
`
`in turn then warns the operator of the ship 20 to change course or take other evasive
`
`action", when the depth ahead is too shallow. In other words, Walsh simply provides a
`
`warning of an impending collision/grounding. Thus, Walsh fails to even provide a
`
`suggested heading and/or depth change, much less non-user selected waypoints that may
`
`be used to avoid the hazard.
`
`As a result, no combination of Fujimoto '423, Michaelson, and/or Walsh discloses,
`
`suggests or makes obvious "performing a marine route calculation algorithm to route a
`
`course between a first location and the potential waypoint avoiding the preselected
`
`conditions, including analyzing cartographic data between the first location and the
`
`potential waypoint and re-routing the course to avoid the preselected conditions by
`
`identifying one or more non-user selected waypoints", as claimed in claim 1. No
`
`combination of Fujimoto '423, Michaelson, and/or Walsh discloses, suggests or makes
`
`obvious "performing a marine route calculation algorithm to analyze a course between a
`
`first location and the potential waypoint avoiding the preselected conditions, including
`
`analyzing cartographic data between the first location and the potential waypoint and re-
`
`routing the course to avoid the preselected conditions by identifying one or more non-user
`
`selected waypoints", as claimed in claim 23. No combination of Fujimoto '423, Michaelson,
`
`and/or Walsh discloses, suggests or makes obvious "wherein the processor operates on a
`
`marine route calculation algorithm to analyze a course between the fir
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
