Appeal No. 2004-2295
Application No. 09/628,396
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this
appeal, this panel of the Board has carefully considered
appellant's specification and claims, the applied teachings, and
the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determination which
follows.
We cannot sustain the examiner's rejections on appeal.
Claim 1 is drawn to an object detection system for a vehicle
comprising; inter alia, an emitter, a receiver, and a controller,
with the controller being operable to construct a map signature
of a signal received by the receiver, the map signature having a
first graphical shape representative of known obstructions
normally within a defined field, and with the controller operable
to construct a second graphical shape in response to an unknown
object entering the defined field, variation from the first
graphical shape indicative of the unknown object.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007