Appeal No. 2002-1866 Page 7
Application No. 09/346,814
From our perspective, the only suggestion to combine the references in the
manner proposed by the examiner is found in the hindsight afforded one who first
viewed the appellants’ disclosure. It therefore is our conclusion that the combined
teachings of Wieder and Shisgal fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with
regard to the subject matter recited in claim 21, and we will not sustain the rejection of
claim 21 or of claims 23-35, which depend therefrom.
Independent claim 36 is directed to a device for assisting the driver of a vehicle
during reverse travel. It contains all of the limitations recited in claim 21, and also
stands rejected as being unpatentable over Wieder and Shisgal. For the reasons set
forth above in discussing the rejection of claim 21, we also will not sustain the rejection
of independent claim 36 and dependent claims 38, 39, 42-45 and 49-54.
Independent apparatus claim 55 also stands rejected as being unpatentable over
Wieder and Shisgal. Claim 55 recites a distance sensor, an evaluating device which
emits signals based upon signals received from the distance sensor, and a mechanism
for influencing the speed of the vehicle in response to the evaluation signals,
wherein when the distance between the vehicle and the obstacle is great,
the speed of the vehicle is determined from a signal produced by a
rotational speed sensor which monitors the rotational speed of a wheel of
the vehicle; and
wherein when the vehicle is in the immediate vicinity of the obstacle, the
speed of the vehicle is determined from the rate of change of the distance
signal with respect to time.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007