Appeal No. 2000-1511
Application 08/671,853
Note that the selected set of rules in claim 129 are not required
to be the same as one of the sets of the plurality of sets
previously recited in the claim. Therefore, we do not find
appellant’s only argument regarding the subsets of rules in
Ishikawa to be persuasive. Accordingly, we sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claim 129.
With respect to separately argued dependent claim 139,
appellants argue that the examiner has not addressed the
limitation of an override controller as claimed. The examiner
responds that he took official notice of this feature. Since the
Federal Circuit has dictated that official notice which has been
contested cannot take the place of evidence lacking in the
record, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 139.
With respect to separately argued dependent claim 134,
appellants argue that the applied prior art does not teach the
added element of warning the human driver first, and then
applying the automatic control only if there is no human response
sufficient to prevent a collision. The examiner took official
notice of alarms. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 134
for reasons discussed in the previous paragraph.
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007