Appeal No. 96-1920
Application 08/218,136
Nishikawa except for the examiner’s improper hindsight
suggestion [brief, page 22]. In addition to the repeated
arguments of the examiner and appellant, appellant also argues
that none of the references discloses or suggests the
integrating of a deviation between a reference trajectory and
an actual trajectory and a comparison of this integration as
recited in these claims [reply brief, page 16].
We agree with all of appellant’s arguments.
Specifically, even though we have previously determined that
Takahashi ’785 does determine or estimate the driving skill of
the vehicle operator, there is no disclosure in Takahashi ’785
of how this
is done except that fuzzy linguistic inference rules are used.
There is no suggestion in Takahashi ’785 that the specific
operations recited in claims 8-12 are performed. Therefore,
we do not sustain this rejection of claims 8-12 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103.
20
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007