Appeal No. 97-2524
Application 08/255,128
disclose the plurality of continuous functions recited
therein. This rejection of claim 16 under Section 103 also
does not indicate why it would have been obvious to the
artisan to modify the structure of Davis to have the driver
instruction timing preferences be comprised of a plurality of
continuous functions. Therefore, the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of the obviousness of claim 16.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 16 as
unpatentable over Davis.
In summary, the rejection of claims 1, 9, 17 and 19 as
anticipated by Nimura ’696 or Nimura ’751 has not been
sustained. The rejection of claims 1, 2, 9, 11-15 and 17-20
as anticipated by Davis is sustained with respect to claims 1,
2, 9, 11, 12, 17 and 18, but is not sustained with respect to
claims 13-15, 19 and 20. The rejection of claim 16 as
unpatentable over Davis is not sustained. Accordingly, the
decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, 9 and 11-20 is
affirmed-in-part.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007