Appeal No. 97-0425
Application 08/330,335
using a Schottky barrier mixer cavity for the Doppler detector
in Flannery. Raudonat is cited only to teach the obviousness
of performing the Flannery processing using Fourier
transforms. Finally, Merlo is cited only to teach the
obviousness of modifying the Flannery fixed low pass filters
to programmable filters which are controlled by the vehicle’s
own velocity. None of these modifications destroys the basic
nature of the Flannery device which is to determine the
relative velocity between two vehicles. Since no other
arguments are presented by appellant, we sustain the rejection
of claims 4 and 5.
6. The rejection of claim 10 as
unpatentable over Gabbitas in view of
Flannery and Merlo and further in view
of Fritzlen.
Claim 10 depends from claim 9 and adds the recitation
that the frequency comparison means are phase locked loops.
The examiner cites Fritzlen to teach this feature and
indicates why the invention of claim 10 would have been
obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103 [Final
Rejection, pages 6-7].
-15-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007