Appeal No. 97-2524
Application 08/255,128
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 11. With
respect to claim 12, appellants make the vehicle speed
argument that we considered earlier. Since Davis clearly
generates instructions based on the speed of the vehicle, we
sustain the rejection of claim 12.
With respect to claim 13, appellants argue that Davis
does not disclose any plurality of continuous functions
related to driver instruction timing preferences [brief, page
15]. Although we have determined that Davis does disclose the
broad concept of driver instruction timing preferences, we
agree with appellants that there is no disclosure in Davis of
what form these timing preferences should take. There
certainly is no disclosure in Davis that driver instruction
timing preferences should be comprised of a plurality of
continuous functions. Since the rejection is under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 and we can find no disclosure of continuous functions as
recited in claim 13, we do not sustain the rejection of claim
13 as anticipated by Davis. Since claims 14-16 depend from
claim 13, we also do not sustain the rejection of these
claims.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007