Appeal No. 2004-2269 Page 5
Application No. 10/076,405
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 4-5; reply brief, p. 2) that Uemura does not
disclose determining an actuation value utilizing the target range signal, the target
relative velocity signal, the host vehicle trajectory, brake system status and the target
azimuth as set forth in claims 1 and 20. We agree. While Uemura's braking system
shown in Figure 1 inherently monitors the brake system status in determining whether
or not to apply the anti-skid system (ABS), we find no disclosure in Uemura of utilizing
the brake system status in determining the actuation value as set forth in claims 1 and
20.
Since all the limitations of claims 1 and 20 are not disclosed in Uemura for the
reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 and 20, and
claims 2 to 6, 11 and 16 to 19 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
The obviousness rejection
We have also reviewed the reference to Breed applied in the rejection of
dependent claims 12, 14 and 15 but find nothing therein which makes up for the
deficiency of Uemura discussed above. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to
reject claims 12, 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007