Appeal No. 2002-1598 Page 6
Application No. 09/596,975
As to the assertion that the language in claim 39 is confusing with regard to the
vehicle following another vehicle, such a technique is disclosed on pages 6 and 7 of the
specification, and it is our view that one of ordinary skill in the art therefore would have
understood the language of the claim.
We reach the same conclusion with regard to the examiner’s rejection of claim
40 because it is not clear how a video guides the vehicle. This is the basic concept of
the appellant’s invention, and is explained in detail in the specification, beginning on
page 3 with the first embodiment and continuing throughout as each of the other
embodiments is presented. We do not agree that the language in issue is indefinite.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is not sustained.
The Rejections Under Section 103
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See, for example, In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). In establishing a prima facie
case of obviousness, it is incumbent upon the examiner to provide a reason why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify a prior art reference or to
combine reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. See Ex parte Clapp,
227 USPQ 972, 973 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985). To this end, the requisite motivation
must stem from some teaching, suggestion or inference in the prior art as a whole or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007