Appeal No. 2001-0088 Page 14
Application No. 09/271,571
except for a memory device which remotely controls the drive
to move the pedal to a preselected desired position (i.e.,
Cicotte does not disclose "an actuating mechanism for remotely
controlling said drive assembly to move said pedal to a
desired position relative to the vehicle structure" as recited
in claim 16). The appellants have not disputed this
determination of the examiner.
With regard to this difference, the examiner then
determined (answer, pp. 3-4) that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made to modify Cicotte by including a memory device which
remotely controls the drive to move the pedal to a preselected
desired position in view of Murphy so that a driver can easily
move the pedal to a preselected desired position even after
another driver has moved it. We agree.
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 5-9) that there is no
suggestion or motivation in the applied prior art to arrive at
the claimed subject matter. The appellants point out that
neither reference (Cicotte or Murphy) discloses, teaches or
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007