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