Appeal No. 1999-2764
Application No. 08/863,228
is warned via a buzzer, light, or the like (col. 8, lines 8 to
10).
At pages 3 to 4 of the answer, the examiner acknowledges
that Deering does not specifically teach controlling
deceleration when a vehicle enters the path of hte controlled
vehicle and will require at least a sudden deceleration of the
controlled vehicle. Although the examiner subsequently states
on page 7 of the answer that "the primary reference [Deering]
is sufficient to provide support for the claimed limitations,"
he also takes the position that the claimed subject matter
would have been obvious in view of Chakraborty’s disclosed
collision prediction warning system.
We will not sustain this rejection. First considering
claim 1, the last step of that claim recites:
attenuating the inverse responsiveness of the
deceleration function when the new inter-vehicle
spacing does not exceed a predetermined inter-
vehicle spacing.
The examiner has not pointed out specifically, nor do we find,
where in Deering there is any disclosure of alternating the
inverse responsiveness of the Deceleration function,
particularly when the spacing between Deering’s vehicles 10
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007