Appeal No. 2001-1480 Page 8
Application No. 09/129,285
While appellant has argued, and we agree, that Ayanoglu
lacks a teaching of transmitting traffic control signals to
traffic control devices as recited in claim 1, the examiner’s
obviousness rejection is based on a combination of the
teachings of Ayanoglu and Marcy. Appellant’s brief does not
challenge the examiner’s determination that it would have been
obvious, in view of the teaching by Marcy of regulating
traffic lights using traffic patterns analyzed on the basis of
traffic information obtained by automated traffic monitoring
devices, to use the traffic information stored in the central
database 50 of Ayanoglu to regulate traffic control devices
such as traffic lights to alleviate road encumbrances. In
that we discern no error in the examiner’s determination of
obviousness based on the combination of references and
appellant has not addressed the combination of references
applied by the examiner in the obviousness rejection, we shall
sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 4.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
Pursuant to our authority under 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we
enter the following new ground of rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007