Appeal 2007-0370
Application 09/951,560
1 that one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine the two references for
2 this reason. (Br. 12: 1-14).
3 While imaginative, this argument is likewise without merit. Vaughn
4 subscribes to the proposition that law enforcement will not ticket a violation
5 when it is in the range of 5-10 miles per hour. (col. 1, ll. 6-12).
6 Accordingly, in some embodiments, it adds a fudge factor of “some
7 predetermined value” (col. 9, ll. 3-5). However, in another embodiment, it
8 will report violations to law enforcement organizations by a GPS transmitter.
9 (col. 9, ll. 24-26).
10 The Examiner has found that the time delay and predetermined value
11 of the references are ways for the motor vehicle department to allow
12 relatively smaller speed violations, whether in the form of a small amount of
13 over speeding or a temporary over speeding, which may be unintentional.
14 (Answer 8: 15-22). Compare this to the well-known discretion of law
15 officers to let small violations pass unticketed.
16 Accordingly, in both Vaughn and Horvat, ticketing of violators is
17 contemplated by reporting conduct to law enforcement agencies.
18 Finally, the Appellant urges that neither Vaughn nor Horvat describe
19 or suggest issuing tickets when a traffic violation is detected via satellite.
20 (Br. 12: 15-17). The Examiner has found that it would have been obvious to
21 one of ordinary skill in the art that the purpose of reporting a speed limit
22 violation to the motor vehicle department as taught by Vaughn or Horvat
23 would be for the purpose of appropriate action including issuance of a traffic
24 ticket. (Answer 3: 11-16; Final Rejection, sentence spanning pp. 2-3). We
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013