Ex Parte Rao et al - Page 4

             Appeal 2006-2294                                                                                      
             Application 09/683,779                                                                                

         1                 Referring now to Figure 2, a vehicle 50 is illustrated having a decision                
         2          zone in front thereof.  The width of the decision zone is a predetermined                      
         3          quantity depending upon the width of the host vehicle.  The longitudinal                       
         4          dimensions of the danger zone depend upon the relative velocity coverage                       
         5          requirements and the vision system coverage capabilities…. When an object                      
         6          enters the decision zone, the radar sensors are able to detect its presence and                
         7          also obtain its relative velocity with respect to the host vehicle.  When the                  
         8          object enters the decision zone the present invention is activated.                            
         9                                                                                                         
        10   Thus, the Appellants’ decision zone is the danger zone in which an object is                          
        11   detected and its relative velocity determined.  Lemelson’s zone in which objects                      
        12   are detected and their shapes, sizes, front and rear profiles, directions of travel, and              
        13   relative velocities are determined (Lemelson, col. 2, ll. 29-38, 44-55) is                            
        14   comparable to the Appellants’ decision zone.                                                          
        15          The Appellants argue that Lemelson does not have a vision sensor that                          
        16   confirms the presence of an object within the decision zone (Br. 4-5; Reply Br. 2).                   
        17   The recited confirming was added to the Appellants’ claims by amendment (filed                        
        18   Dec. 22, 2003).  The Appellants have not pointed out, and we do not find, where                       
        19   the recited confirming is described in the Appellants’ original disclosure.1  Thus,                   
        20   we consider the visual sensing described in the Appellants’ original disclosure to                    
        21   encompass the confirming added to the claims.  Accordingly, we consider                               
        22   Lemelson’s visual sensing (Lemelson, col. 2, ll. 44-55; col. 5, ll. 36-50) to                         
        23   encompass the Appellants’ confirming.                                                                 
        24                                  Claims 2, 3, 7, 8 and 11                                               

                                                                                                                   
             1 In the event of further prosecution the Examiner and the Appellants should                          
             address on the record whether there is adequate written descriptive support under                     
             35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, in the Appellants’ original disclosure for the                      
             confirming recited in the Appellants’ claims.                                                         
                                                         4                                                         


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013