Appeal No. 96-1920
Application 08/218,136
claim 1.
We now consider the rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by the disclosure of
Takahashi ’785. The examiner indicates how he reads claim 1
on the disclosure of Takahashi ’785 on pages 7-8 of the
answer. Appellant argues that Takahashi ’785 “does not
include a control means for controlling a steering device
according to a detected vehicle operating condition such as
yaw rate and/or lateral acceleration, as well as means for
modifying a property of the controlling means based on an
estimated driver’s skill level as claimed” [brief, pages 18-
19]. The examiner responds that Takahashi ’785 determines a
driver’s skill level and uses this determination to adjust the
level of control [answer, page 15]. Appellant argues that
Takahashi ’785 controls the vehicle steering system
exclusively based on detected data of a driver’s steering
input to a steering wheel rather than on an actual operating
condition of the vehicle [reply brief, pages 11-12].
Appellant also argues that the intervention in Takahashi ’785
may not necessarily decrease the level of control based on the
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007