Ex Parte Prakah-Asante et al - Page 5




                Appeal No. 2004-2269                                                                           Page 5                   
                Application No. 10/076,405                                                                                              



                        The appellants argue (brief, pp. 4-5; reply brief, p. 2) that Uemura does not                                   
                disclose determining an actuation value utilizing the target range signal, the target                                   
                relative velocity signal, the host vehicle trajectory, brake system status and the target                               
                azimuth as set forth in claims 1 and 20.  We agree.  While Uemura's braking system                                      
                shown in Figure 1 inherently monitors the brake system status in determining whether                                    
                or not to apply the anti-skid system (ABS), we find no disclosure in Uemura of utilizing                                
                the brake system status in determining the actuation value as set forth in claims 1 and                                 
                20.                                                                                                                     


                        Since all the limitations of claims 1 and 20 are not disclosed in Uemura for the                                
                reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 and 20, and                                    
                claims 2 to 6, 11 and 16 to 19 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.                                 


                The obviousness rejection                                                                                               
                        We have also reviewed the reference to Breed applied in the rejection of                                        
                dependent claims 12, 14 and 15 but find nothing therein which makes up for the                                          
                deficiency of Uemura discussed above.  Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to                                     
                reject claims 12, 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.                                                          


                                                           CONCLUSION                                                                   







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007