Appeal No. 2002-1866 Page 8
Application No. 09/346,814
We have studied the passages in Wieder to which the examiner directed us as support
for the conclusion that the speed control specified in claim 55 is taught by this
reference, but we find ourselves in agreement with the appellants that such is not the
case. While Wieder discloses utilizing the speed of the wheels to detect speed (column
2, lines 56-60), the reference does not specify when this technique is used, much less
that it is used only when the vehicle is some distance from the obstacle. The examiner
has not explained where the limitation in claim 55 regarding using the rate of change of
the distance signal is found in the passage cited in column 5 of Wieder, and we have
not located support for such a conclusion on our own.
This being the case, it is our opinion that Wieder and Shisgal fail to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness with regard to claim 55, and we will not sustain the
rejection. It follows that we also will not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 56,
57 and 60-63.
Claims 40, 41, 46, 58 and 59 stand rejected as being unpatentable over Wieder
and Shisgal, taken further with Suzuki. The rejection of claims 36 and 55, from which
these claims depend, has not been sustained. Further consideration of Suzuki, which
was cited for disclosing a vehicle having distance sensors mounted in recesses in a
bumper, does not alter this conclusion. The rejection of claims 40, 41, 46, 58 and 59 is
not sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007