Ex parte BAIL - Page 11




          Appeal No. 2000-0007                                      Page 11           
          Application No. 08/586,919                                                  


               We agree with the appellant's argument (brief, pp. 10-13)              
          that even if it would have been obvious at the time the                     
          invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the                 
          art to have modified Pirre to include ultra-sonic anti-                     
          collision device as taught by Suyama, the combination still                 
          would not have arrived at the claimed combination.  In that                 
          regard, the examiner's proposed modification of Pirre would                 
          not have provided either (1) the claimed "transmitter means                 
          for sending high frequency and ultrasonic signals to the                    
          vehicle" or (2) the claimed "ultrasonic position finder means               
          for determining the direction and distance of the transmitter               
          means through said ultrasonic signals from said transmitter                 
          [means] when the vehicle is within said predetermined                       
          distance" for the reasons discussed above with respect to the               
          anticipation rejection of claim 13.                                         


               For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the                   
          examiner to reject claims 13 to 15, 17, 20 and 24 under 35                  
          U.S.C.  103 is reversed.                                                   


          Claims 19 and 23                                                            







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007