Appeal No. 1998-2869
Application 08/453,496
Examiner further argues that because independent claims 1 and
12 do not set forth this limitation, Shiraishi’s ‘636 yaw
rate motion control device reads on Appellants’ claims.
In response, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s
asserted position is in conflict with the sixth paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112. Appellants argue that the claimed
“driving state-determining means for determining whether or
not said driving state of said driver is normal, based on said
lateral deviation behavior amount” must be interpreted as
limited to the corresponding structure, materials or acts
described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Appellants argue that this means-plus-function limitation must
be read in light of the specification starting on page 6, line
13, through page 10, line 25, in which a detailed description
is provided on just how the driving state determining means
determines whether the driving state of the driver is normal,
irrespective of the road surface conditions and differences in
the driving skill between individual drivers, based on the
lateral deviation behavior amount, which is in turn based on
the behavior reference parameter. See pages 2 and 3 of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007