Appeal No. 2000-0858 Page 5
Application No. 08/890,933
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 8-10; reply brief, pp.
1-3) that the following limitations from independent claim 10
are not found in Suzuki
delaying a resumption of said control by said road
speed controller for a pregiven time duration when said
resumption is actuated by said driver and said actual
speed (Vact) is greater than said stored desired speed
(Vdes); and,
after said pregiven time duration has elapsed,
decelerating said motor vehicle in such a manner that
said actual speed (Vact) approaches said stored desired
speed (Vdes)
and the following limitations from independent claim 11 are
not found in Suzuki
means for delaying the resumption of the control of
said road speed for a pregiven time duration when said
resumption is actuated by said driver and said actual
speed (Vact) is greater than said stored desired speed
(Vdes); and,
means for decelerating said motor vehicle in such a
manner that said actual speed (Vact) approaches said
stored desired speed (Vdes) after said pregiven time
duration has elapsed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007