Appeal 2006-2294
Application 09/683,779
1 The Appellants argue that there is no suggestion in Lemelson to generate an
2 object size signal wherein the object size comprises height (Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 2,
3 4). Lemelson’s visual detection of the shape and size of an object (Lemelson, col.
4 2, ll. 50-55) necessarily requires detecting the object’s height.
5 Claim 5 and 102
6 The Appellants argue that Lemelson does not disclose a decision zone
7 having a size dependent on a relative velocity signal (Br. 5; Reply Br. 3). That
8 claim limitation was added by amendment (filed Dec. 22, 2003). The Appellants
9 have not pointed out, and we do not find, where that limitation is described in the
10 Appellants’ original disclosure.3 Hence, we consider the Appellants’ requirement
11 of a decision zone size dependent on the relative velocity signal to be encompassed
12 by the Appellants’ decision zone in which relative velocity is determined (Spec.
13 ¶ 0035). Lemelson’s zone wherein relative velocity is determined (Lemelson, col.
14 3, ll. 13-18) is comparable to that decision zone.
15 Claim 9
16 The Appellants argue that Lemelson does not determine an object
17 orientation in response to the object distance, size and type (Br. 6; Reply Br. 3).
18 Claim 9 recites “height,” not “type.” Lemelson discloses that the object’s direction
19 of travel (i.e., its orientation toward or away from the vehicle) is determined
20 (Lemelson, col. 2, l. 34), but does not disclose how that determination is made.
2 The Appellants do not separately argue claims 18 and 19 that depend from claim
10.
3 In the event of further prosecution the Examiner and the Appellants should
address on the record whether there is adequate written descriptive support under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, in the Appellants’ original disclosure for the
decision zone having a size dependent on the relative velocity signal recited in the
Appellants’ claims 5 and 10.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013