Appeal No. 2000-1511
Application 08/671,853
Specifically, the rejection states that it would require undue
experimentation to enable a person skilled in the art to make and
use the invention. The rejection also states that the disclosure
is insufficient for teaching how to distinguish one object from
another object or how to determine distance and relative velocity
of each object. The examiner also states that the disclosure is
non-enabling for the measurement of the width of the rear end of
an automobile. The examiner observes that the object detection
and recognition and the fuzzy logic rules require complex
algorithms and extensive processing that are not sufficiently
described in the disclosure [first action rejection, pages 4-6].
In the final rejection the examiner added that the complexity of
putting all the features into one real-time system requires undue
experimentation.
Appellants argue that the rejection does not properly
consider the actual language of the claims. Appellants argue
that the examiner has offered no evidence to support the position
that the invention could not be implemented in real time.
Specifically, appellants argue that the table lookup requirements
of the claimed invention would not require any, much less undue,
experimentation, and that the claimed invention basically uses
known prior art systems of fuzzy logic and image analysis and
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007