Appeal No. 2002-1866 Page 2
Application No. 09/346,814
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a method and device for assisting a driver
during reverse travel of a vehicle toward an obstacle. An understanding of the invention
can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 21, which appears in the appendix to
the Brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Shisgal et al. (Shisgal) 5,574,426 Nov. 12, 1996
Wieder et al. (Wieder) 5,864,285 Jan. 26, 1999
Schulte 5,869,764 Feb. 9, 1999
Suzuki et al. (Suzuki) 6,072,391 Jun. 6, 2000
(filed Jun. 12, 1996)
The following rejections stand under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):1
Claims 21, 23-36, 38, 39, 42-45, 49-57 and 60-63 on the basis of Wieder and Shisgal.
Claims 40, 41, 46, 58 and 59 on the basis of Wieder, Shisgal and Suzuki.
Claims 47 and 48 on the basis of Wieder, Shisgal, Suzuki and Schulte.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 18) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to the Brief (Paper No. 17) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
1A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, was withdrawn in the Answer.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007