Appeal 2006-2294
Application 09/683,779
1 may be used to avoid obstacles and accidents” (Lemelson, col. 1, ll. 14-20).
2 “[R]adar or lidar scanning may be jointly employed to identify and indicate
3 distances between the controlled vehicle and objects ahead of, to the side(s) of, and
4 to the rear of the controlled vehicle” (Lemelson, col. 6, ll. 9-13). Indications of
5 distances to such objects can be computed by obtaining identifying video or other
6 image information such as the size of the identified vehicle or other object and
7 comparing that information with shape and size information such as rear and front
8 profiles of all production vehicles and the like and their relative sizes or select
9 dimensions (Lemelson, col. 2, ll. 44-55). A “file contains necessary information to
10 make control decision[s] including, for example, hazard location (front, back, left
11 side, right side), hazard distance, relative velocity, steering angle, braking pressure,
12 weather data, and the presence or absence of obstructions or objects to the front,
13 rear, or to either side of the vehicle” (Lemelson, col. 9, ll. 1-6). “[T]he decision
14 computer may select the evasive action taken from a number of choices, depending
15 on whether and where the detection device senses other vehicles or obstacles”
16 (Lemelson, abstract). If necessary to avoid or lessen the effects of an accident, a
17 subsystem “stops the forward travel of the vehicle in a controlled manner
18 depending on the relative speeds of the two vehicles, and/or the controlled vehicle
19 and a stationary object or structure and the distance therebetween” (Lemelson, col.
20 3, ll. 13-18). Another subsystem that may be part of that subsystem or separate
21 from it “may generate one or more codes which are applied to either effect partial
22 and/or complete control of the steering mechanism for the vehicle to avoid an
23 obstacle and/or lessen the effect of an accident” (Lemelson, col. 3, ll. 19-23).
24 The Appellants argue that Lemelson does not disclose or suggest a decision
25 zone (Br. 4; Reply Br. 2). The Appellants’ Specification states (¶ 0035):
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013