Ex Parte SIMON et al - Page 7




             Appeal No. 2002-0418                                                                                
             Application No. 08/872,836                                                                          

             upon the teaching of Tsuchiya for the stereoscopic processing of the images to obtain               
             the more accurate and usable distance information which may be used  to trigger the                 
             airbag.  (See rejection at pages 4-5.)  Appellants argue that detecting the type of object          
             is not the same as detecting the size of the object.  We disagree with appellants’                  
             general argument, and we find that Breed does disclose the size which may be the                    
             difference between a big and small object to distinguish an adult and infant.  Here,                
             appellants have not recited a range of values of size or required a numeric value to be             
             determined.  While we do find that Breed does disclose the determination of a size of               
             an object, we find no teaching or suggestion to “determine a size of the object in                  
             response to a given amount that the object is shifted between the first and second                  
             images.”  While Breed does disclose the use of plural sensors and a “stereographic                  
             analysis can be made by circuitry 120” (Breed at col. 13), we find no discussion by the             
             examiner of the processing which must use the “shift” between the two images.  Since                
             we find no discussion of the specific processing at the specific portions of Tsuchiya               
             cited by the examiner, and we further find no convincing line of reasoning why it would             
             have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to look to the teachings of Tsuchiya          
             to determine the size of an passenger inside a vehicle, we will not sustain the rejection           
             of independent claims 1, 15, and 36 and their dependent claims 2, 4-13, 16-20, 33, 34,              
             and 37-40.                                                                                          
                   With respect to dependent claims 22 and 24, we find no specific rebuttal to the               
             examiner’s rejection of these two claims.  (See brief at pages 12 and 13.)  We find that            
                                                       7                                                         





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007