Appeal No. 2000-1511
Application 08/671,853
ranging [brief, pages 7-12].
The examiner essentially repeats the statements made in
the rejections. Additionally, the examiner responds that the
specification has not disclosed how the invention can be achieved
in a coherent real time system. The examiner then appears to
question whether the claimed invention is capable of operating in
real time [answer, pages 5-8].
Appellants respond that many of the “claimed” features
questioned in the examiner’s rejections do not even appear in the
broadest claims on appeal. Appellants also respond that the
examiner has ignored previously submitted evidence that real-time
image analysis systems were known at the time of the invention.
Appellants observe that the evidence on this record clearly
supports appellants’ position that the invention is adequately
described [reply brief].
The examiner responds that appellants’ system may not be
fast enough to provide a practical collision avoidance system.
Basically, the examiner makes a variety of assumptions about the
data, and the examiner concludes that a “real time” system is not
practical [supplemental answer].
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007