Appeal No. 2002-1717 Page 10
Application No. 09/089,153
imported or read into the claims from the specification. In re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir.
1993) citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322
(Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Priest, 582 F.2d 33, 37, 199 USPQ 11, 15
(CCPA 1978). Accordingly, because claim 1 does not recite any
particular distance of the detector module, we find that
appellant’s argument regarding the accuracy of the recited
distance detection system does not distinguish claim 1 over the
teachings of Schofield and Gauthier.
From all of the above, we find that the examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness of claim 1 that has
not been successfully rebutted by appellant. The rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
We turn next to dependent claim 2, which appellant has
separately argued (brief, page 9). Claim 2 recites: “The vehicle
backup monitoring and alarm system of claim 1, wherein said
display monitor comprises a flat panel display mounted on a hinge
and spring system, that is capable of being folded up and away
when not in use.” The examiner’s position (answer, page 6) is
that
[s]ince Schofield discloses that the display may be
placed in various places that are convenient to the
driver, it would have been obvious to one skilled in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007