Appeal No. 97-2524
Application 08/255,128
instruction timing preferences, and for generating a guidance
instruction whose timing is determined by the degree of
conformance to the driver instruction timing preferences; and
means for communicating said guidance instruction to a
driver of the vehicle.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Nimura et al. (Nimura ’696) 4,882,696 Nov. 21, 1989
Nimura et al. (Nimura ’751) 4,937,751 June 26, 1990
Davis et al. (Davis) 5,177,685 Jan. 05, 1993
(filed Aug. 09,
1990)
Claims 1, 9, 17 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by the disclosures of Nimura
’696 or Nimura ’751. Claims 1, 2, 9, 11-15 and 17-20 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by the
disclosure of Davis. Finally, claim 16 stands rejected under
35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Davis.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007