Appeal No. 2000-0858 Page 6
Application No. 08/890,933
After reviewing the teachings of Suzuki, we found
ourselves in agreement with the appellants that the above-
noted limitations of claims 10 and 11 (the only independent
claims on appeal) are not found in Suzuki. In fact, we are
unable to find in Suzuki any mention of the actual speed of
the vehicle being greater than the stored or preset speed.
Moreover, even if Suzuki's system would inherently provide a
delay before resumption of the control if the actual speed of
the vehicle was greater than the stored or preset speed, such
a delay would not be for a pregiven time duration.
Since the above-noted limitations of claims 10 and 11 are
not found in Suzuki for the reasons set forth above, the
decision of the examiner to reject claims 10 and 11, and
claims 5 to 8 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
reversed.
The obviousness rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 3
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We have reviewed the reference to
Yamaguchi applied with Suzuki in the rejection of claim 3 but
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007