Appeal No. 95-2730
Application No. 08/169959
for the first and second modes. The examiner also contends
that there is inadequate disclosure for emitting a signal on a
first operating mode characteristic of clear visibility,
switching to a second operating mode and emitting a signal in
the second operating mode. The examiner further contends that
there is an inadequate disclosure of a signal emission
occurring when two receivers observe an object at
approximately the same distance whose relative speed is one of
lower than, equal to, and higher than, the vehicle speed. The
examiner also questions how the object sensing device operates
with respect to the operating mode selector (4) and the rotary
type switch (5). Finally, the examiner asks, “How does the
object sensing device (1) know when an object is standing or
is driving more slowly in the driver’s direction of the motor
vehicle, and when an object comes toward the motor vehicle?”
[final rejection, page 4].
We have carefully considered the record before us,
including, inter alia, the arguments of the examiner and
appellant, the original disclosure and the declaration of
Walter Weishaupt and we conclude therefrom that while the
artisan would have needed to resort to some minimal
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007