Appeal No. 2002-1866 Page 4
Application No. 09/346,814
obstacle during travel of the vehicle in reverse toward the obstacle, and automatically
influences the speed of the vehicle as it moves toward the obstacle. As manifested in
claim 21, the method comprises the steps of evaluating distance signals representative
of the distance between a vehicle tail and the obstacle, automatically influencing the
speed of the vehicle as a function of the distance signals, assigning velocity values to
the distance signals so that the step of automatically influencing includes limiting the
speed of the vehicle not to exceed the assigned velocity values, and wherein the
distance signals are classified into a plurality of zones and each of the zones is
matched to a different assigned velocity value with the zones comprising
zone 1, wherein the distance signals are greater than 3m and the
assigned velocity value for zone 1 is V1;
zone 2, wherein the distance signals are between 1m and 3m and the
assigned velocity value for zone 2 is V2;
zone 3, wherein the distance signals are less than 1m and the assigned
velocity value for zone 3 is V3; and
wherein V1 is greater than V2 which is greater than V3.
It is the examiner’s view that Wieder discloses all of the subject matter recited in
claim 21 except for the exact values assigned to distance signals within the disclosed
zones (Answer, page 5). However, the examiner takes the position that it would have
been obvious to “assign any value safe for obstacle approach to the distance signals
. . . since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007