Appeal No. 2003-0530
Application 09/598,815
DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 1, 3 through 8, 10,
12 through 17, 19, 20 and 22 through 24 as being anticipated by
Jitsukata
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency,
each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
As framed by the appellants (see pages 3 through 8 in the
brief), the dispositive issue with respect to the anticipation
rejection of claims 1, 3 through 8, 10, 12 through 17, 19, 20 and
22 through 24 is whether Jitsukata meets the limitations in
independent claim 1, and the corresponding limitations in
independent claims 10 and 19, relating to the non-vehicular
driving condition information local to a first or leading vehicle
which is sensed by the vehicle and transmitted to and/or received
by a second or following vehicle.
Jitsukata discloses a rather complicated multiple vehicle
driving system which is adequately summarized in the reference as
follows:
The automatic driving system according to the
present invention comprises radar means for detecting
an obstacle in front of one vehicle to generate an
obstacle detecting signal, imaging means for imaging a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007