Appeal No. 96-1920
Application 08/218,136
invention of claim 1. We are also not persuaded by
appellant’s argument that the level of intervention in
Takahashi ’785 may not always correspond to the actual skill
level of the operator. Even though Takahashi ’785 allows for
age to be considered, which may not always directly correlate
to a driver’s skill level, it is clear that Takahashi ’785
discloses a system in which the desired result is to make the
vehicle easier to operate for an unskilled driver [see
abstract]. Therefore, Takahashi ’785 discloses the control
operation recited in claim 1 even though his preferred
embodiment also uses age which does not always correlate to
skill level. The thrust of his invention is to decrease the
level of intervention when the driving skill is relatively
high.
Based on our discussion above, we conclude that the
invention as broadly recited in claim 1 is fully met by the
disclosure of Takahashi ’785. Therefore, we sustain this
rejection of claim 1.
We now consider the rejection of claims 3-7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007