Appeal No. 2006-1782
Application No. 09/879,698
argue (brief, page 7) that “Breed teaches against the display of video image data from a camera
at paragraph [0007], and specifically teaches the display of icons representing the user’s vehicle
and surrounding vehicles at paragraph [0221].” Although Breed prefers to display icons to avoid
confusion to the driver of the secondary vehicle, Breed makes clear that the driver of the
secondary vehicle can view the video image data from the camera on a display in a non-preferred
embodiment (paragraph [0007]). The preferred embodiment1 teachings as well as the non-
preferred embodiment teachings of Breed are available to the examiner in a prior art rejection.
In view of all of the teachings of Breed, the anticipation rejection of claims 14 and 16 through 21
is sustained.
The obviousness rejections of claims 4 through 7 and 9 are reversed because the camera
and vehicle monitoring teachings of Lee and Strumolo fail to cure the noted pan/tilt and zoom
motor deficiency in the teachings of Breed.
The obviousness rejection of claim 15 is sustained because appellants’ sole argument
(brief, page 9) is that Breed teaches against the display of video image data from a camera. As
indicated supra, Breed describes an embodiment where the driver of the secondary vehicle can
view such video image data from the camera.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 3, 8, 10 through 14 and 16
1 As indicated supra, the preferred embodiment converts the image data from the at least one camera to an icon for
display inside the secondary vehicle. We find that nothing in the claims on appeal precludes the conversion of the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007