Appeal No. 1998-2375
Application 08/512,065
OPINION
Generally for the reasons set forth by the examiner in the final rejection and answer,
we sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5 through 13, 15, 17 through 24, 26 through
42, 45 through 54 and 56 through 58. We, therefore, agree with appellants' arguments as
to the patentability of claims 4, 25, 43, 44 and 55.
From our study of appellants' arguments in the brief and reply brief, appellants do
not argue the non-combinability of the three references relied upon by the examiner within
35 U.S.C. § 103 or that the specifically identified references to Weber and Girotto do not
teach or suggest what the examiner alleges. As stated at page 8 of the principal brief on
appeal, “[a]ppellants do not argue with the fact that at least SNSR'' shown in Figure 6 of
McShane and including an accelerometer is means for sensing or determining the rate of
movement of a vehicle, or sensing a speed condition of a vehicle. However, it is
respectfully submitted that the examiner is in error in asserting that this sensor functions in
any way to inhibit operation of the motor vehicle based on the rate of movement of the
vehicle.” It is with respect to these latter assertions that we disagree with appellants' views
as to the teachings in and teaching value of McShane.
The focus of the dispute between the examiner and McShane revolves around the
Figure 6 showing of the alternative embodiment for the sensor shown in the overall system
of Figure 4. The discussion in the SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION at column 2 regarding
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007