Appeal No. 97-0425
Application 08/330,335
burden is, therefore, upon appellant to come forward with
evidence or arguments which persuasively rebut the examiner’s
prima facie case of obviousness. Appellant has presented
several substantive arguments in response to the examiner’s
rejection. Therefore, we consider obviousness based upon the
totality of the evidence and the relative persuasiveness of
the arguments.
Appellant’s arguments with respect to this rejection
are contained within pages 11-15 of the brief. We will
consider these arguments with respect to representative,
independent claim 17. As we noted above, appellant’s
restatement of the claim language of each of the claims
subject to this rejection is not sufficient to have the claims
considered separately for patentability.
Appellant argues that Flannery does not remove ground
speed from his system. We note that Claim 17 does not recite
that ground speed is removed from the system. Claim 17 only
recites that the velocity of the first vehicle is supplied.
We also note that Merlo, not Flannery, was cited as the
teaching of using a vehicle’s ground speed to adjust the
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007