Appeal No. 2002-1717 Page 7
Application No. 09/089,153
devices on a ‘trailer’ as the examiner states” (meaning a
tractor-trailer), and that “[t]his distinction is key to the
patentability of the present invention. . ..” However, appellant
acknowledges (id.) that Schofield teaches the use of its rearview
vision system in conjunction with “a vehicle 10, which may be an
automobile, a light truck, a sport utility vehicle, a van, a bus,
a large truck, or the like” (col. 3, lines 50-52) (emphasis
added).
From the disclosure of Schofield, we find that the reference
discloses providing a large truck or the like, with a rearview
vision system reads on the claimed “trailer with its associated
tractor.” Furthermore, assuming arguendo that Schofield does not
disclose a tractor-trailer, an artisan would have been motivated
to apply Schofield's sysyem to a tractor-trailer as taught by
Gauthier.
It is further argued (brief, page 7) that in the present
invention, the detection modules "are located only on the trailer
of a semi-tractor/trailer combination," and (brief, page 6) that
in Schofield, the image capture devices were meant to be located
forward on the body of the vehicle. From our review of claim 1,
we find that the claim recites “a driver's side detection module
mounted on the trailer approximately one-third of the way back
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007