Appeal No. 1999-2764
Application No. 08/863,228
Turning to the Hibino reference, we note that Hibino
‘426, like appellants is concerned with preventing abrupt
deceleration of a controlled vehicle even when another vehicle
unexpectedly breaks in ahead of it (col. 3, lines 11 to 14).
Here again however, as with the Deering reference discussed
above, we do not find that all the limitations of the appealed
claims are met even when either Hibino patent is combined with
Chakraborty in the manner, proposed by the examiner. While
the examiner states on page 5 of the answer that Hibino ‘426
alternates the deceleration so as to decrease deceleration "as
the inter-vehicle distance is larger that [sic: than] a
predetermined value," this is contrary to the requirement of
claim 1, supra (and the other appealed claims) that the
increase responsiveness of the deceleration function is
alternated when the new inter-vehicle spacing does not exceed
a predetermined spacing.
We therefore will not sustain rejection (2).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007