Appeal No. 95-1783
Application 08/069,957
teachings of Hendricks with either DeMetz or Auer for the
reasons indicated by appellants.
Appellants also point out that Hendricks uses plural
sensing elements for monitoring plural zones such that there
is one sensor for each monitored zone. Although the examiner
finds that this operation teaches the claimed spatial
discrimination circuitry, appellants strongly disagree. We
again agree with appellants.
Claim 1 recites that the two different transducers
receive signals from the same motor vehicle. The transducers
in Hendricks are designed to receive signals from a specific
one of the street lanes. Thus, no two transducers in
Hendricks receive signals from the same motor vehicle so that
spatial discrimination circuitry is unnecessary. The
examiner’s finding that Hendricks teaches two transducers and
the spatial discrimination circuitry as recited in claim 1 is
clearly erroneous.
Although the examiner may view the point of contention
here to be minor or clearly obvious, the indisputable fact is
that this record does not support the examiner’s rejection.
We are not in a position to say whether there is any prior art
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007