Appeal No. 1998-2375
Application 08/512,065
whether an inhibition of the vehicle as a whole would occur according to the remaining
discussion of modified Figure 4 in its operation.
Therefore, we disagree with appellants' assertions in the brief and reply brief
regarding the actual teachings and suggestions in McShane itself. Moreover, as alluded to
by the examiner in his brief discussion at the top of page 5 of the answer, the teaching
value of McShane to the artisan includes teachings of determining distance, time, velocity
and acceleration as values which may be utilized to disable a vehicle after a given value is
determined by the respective sensed element. It is implied from the discussion of column
6, line 45, regarding a distance value determination of the initial embodiment for the SNSR
that a value other than one mile may be arbitrarily set by the user of the vehicle or the
designer of the system. The operator selectability capability of the overall system is taught
at the last lines of column 8 of McShane.
Finally, we agree with appellants' views expressed at pages 9 through 11 regarding
dependent claims 4, 25, 43, 44 and 55. Because it is clear from the examiner's statement
of the rejection in the final rejection that he does not regard any teaching value of Weber
and Girotto as indicating a determination of rate of movement or speed of a vehicle, our
study of McShane leads us to conclude that there is no teaching in this reference regarding
the features recited in these noted claims as
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007