Appeal No. 2003-0530
Application 09/598,815
position of the aforementioned lane markers [column 7,
lines 7 through 40].
The examiner’s finding (see pages 3, 4, 6 and 7 in the
answer) that the running course and running course setting
position signals transmitted by Jitsukata from the leading
vehicle to the subsequent vehicle meet or correspond to the non-
vehicular driving condition information claim limitations at
issue is not well taken. Although these signals are derived from
non-vehicular driving condition information local to and sensed
by the leading vehicle, they do not themselves embody this
particular type of information. Hence, notwithstanding the
examiner’s determination to the contrary, Jitsukata does not
disclose each and every element of the subject matter recited in
independent claims 1, 10 and 19.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) rejection of independent claims 1, 10 and 19, and
dependent claims 3 through 8, 12 through 17, 20 and 22 through
24, as being anticipated by Jitsukata.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 2, 9, 11, 18 and
21 as being unpatentable over Jitsukata in view of Rahman
In addition to not disclosing subject matter meeting the
non-vehicular driving condition information limitations in
independent claims 1, 10 and 19, Jitsukata would not have
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007