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