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. CONCLUSIONPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007