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 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007