Appeal No. 97-0425
Application 08/330,335
frequency range of a Doppler filter. Thus, appellant’s
argument is not commensurate in scope with the claimed
invention and individually challenges references which have
been used in combination. Appellant also argues that Flannery
operates under a flawed principle, but we are unable to find
the relevance of this argument to the invention as broadly
recited in claim 17.
Appellant argues that Flannery does not include the
Fourier transform or direction sensitive means [brief, page
14]. With respect to the former argument, Raudonat was cited
to teach the Fourier transform. With respect to the latter
argument, we disagree with appellant. Flannery clearly
determines whether the vehicles are approaching each other or
are moving away from each other [column 4, lines 47-52].
Therefore, these arguments are not persuasive of error in the
examiner’s rejection.
Appellant argues that Merlo depends on single channel
operation while Flannery depends on two-channel operation. It
is appellant’s position that there would be no motivation to
combine the Merlo single channel device with either the
Flannery or Raudonat two-channel devices. We do not agree.
-9-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007