Appeal 2006-2294
Application 09/683,779
1 Hence, one of ordinary skill in the art, through no more than ordinary creativity,
2 would have determined the direction of travel from the relevant factors determined
3 by Lemelson such as the object’s distance and how the object’s shape and size
4 compare with the rear and front profiles, sizes and select dimensions of all
5 production vehicles and the like (Lemelson, col. 2, ll. 29-39; 44-55). See KSR
6 Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) (In
7 making an obviousness determination one “can take account of the inferences and
8 creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”).
9 Claims 12-14 and 16
10 The Appellants argue that Lemelson does not disclose activating a
11 countermeasure in response to an object’s visually-measured cross-sectional area
12 or size (Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 4). Cross-sectional area is part of the size and shape
13 which are visually measured by Lemelson and used to activate countermeasures
14 (Lemelson, col. 2, l. 44 - col. 3, l. 31).
15 Rejection of claim 4
16 Kosiak is relied upon by the Examiner for a disclosure of a vehicle speed
17 sensor generating a speed signal corresponding to the longitudinal speed of the
18 vehicle, wherein a controller activates countermeasures in response to the
19 longitudinal speed signal (Office Action mailed Apr. 20, 2004, pp. 4-5).
20 The Appellant argues that Kosiak does not remedy the deficiency in
21 Lemelson as to the decision zone and confirming recited in claim 1 from which
22 claim 4 depends (Br. 7). As discussed above regarding claim 1, that argued
23 deficiency does not exist.
24 Rejection of claims 17 and 20
25 Farmer is relied upon by the Examiner for disclosures of activating a
26 countermeasure system in response to object size and vehicle orientation, and
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013