Appeal No. 1999-2764
Application No. 08/863,228
and 12 does not exceed a predetermined spacing, as claimed.
Chakraborty does not cure this deficiency, for even if one of
ordinary skill were to modify the Deering system in view of
Chakraborty, the result would be the addition of a special
warning the vehicle operator if a collision with the preceding
vehicle were predicted. We fail to see how the method as2
recited in claim would read on the operation of such a system.
The combination of Labuhn and Chakraborty is considered
deficient for the same reasons.
Accordingly, rejection (1) will not be sustained with
respect to claim 1, nor, likewise, as to claims 4 and 10, the
other independent claims on appeal, or as to dependent claims
2, 3, 9 and 11.
2Moreover, it appears that Deering already discloses such
a warning signal; See, e.g., col. 9, lines 38 to 50.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007