Appeal No. 2002-1717 Page 5
Application No. 09/089,153
In making our determination, we have considered the
disclosures of Schofield et al. and Gauthier for what each one
fairly teaches one of ordinary skill in the art, including not
only the specific teachings, but also the inferences which one of
ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have been expected to
draw therefrom. See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507,
510 (CCPA 1966); In re Preda, 401 f.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342,
344 (CCPA 1968). Additionally, in our evaluation of the
obviousness issues before us, we have presumed skill on the part
of the artisan, rather than the lack thereof. See In re Sovish,
769 F.2d 738, 742, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1098).
We first turn to independent claim 1. The examiner’s
position (final rejection, pages 5-6) is that Schofield shows all
of the recited features except for a rear detection module that
contains not only a small video camera, but also a laser-based
distance detection system and a pair of high intensity lamps. To
overcome this deficiency in Schofield, the examiner turns to
Gauthier (final rejection, page 6) for the use of a tractor-
trailer backup system that includes back-up lights and a rear
detection module containing a distance detection system.
In response, appellant argues (brief, pages 4-5) that the
examiner has failed to present evidence of motivation to combine
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007