Appeal No. 97-0425
Application 08/330,335
velocity of the vehicle having the Doppler equipment. The
examiner cites Flannery for the same reasons discussed above,
and the examiner observes that Merlo teaches controlling a
Doppler filter based upon a vehicle’s own velocity [Final
Rejection, pages 3-4]. The examiner’s rationale for combining
the teachings of Flannery with those of Merlo is sufficient to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Appellant argues that the filters in Flannery are
fixed and not programmable as claimed. The examiner has
recognized this fact and has proposed modifying the Flannery
filters to be programmable as suggested by Merlo. Appellant
does not present any arguments which point to the
nonobviousness of this modification. Instead, appellant’s
arguments attack deficiencies in the references individually
even though the deficiencies have been acknowledged by the
examiner and have been overcome by the application of
additional teachings. Appellant’s arguments related to
features of cost, size and differences in operation are not
relevant to the invention as broadly recited in claim 11.
Since appellant has presented no persuasive arguments of error
in the examiner’s rejection, we sustain the rejection of
-11-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007