Appeal 2007-0370
Application 09/951,560
1 037. Angeloni describes using a delay means in the vehicle for
2 allowing a vehicle’s speed to be above the predetermined speed limit for a
3 predetermined amount of time before determining a speeding violation in
4 addition to allowing a predetermined value of speed above the speed limit.
5 (4:26-61; see especially 55-57 for transmitting a message after 10-15
6 seconds).
7 Level of Skill in the Art
8 038. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
9 made would have been familiar with the workings of a GPS system.
10 (Vaughn, 4:23-7:22).
11 C. The Appellant’s Arguments
12 i. Claims 1-4
13 The Appellant initially challenges the rejection as it applies to claims
14 1-4 together.
15 First, the Appellant argues that:
16 Horvat is flawed and undesirable in that the provision of
17 monitors on many telephone poles along a roadway is
18 inefficient, burdensome and extremely costly to such an extent
19 that it would not be practical. Thus the system of Horvat is an
20 idealistic concept that is not practical and would never be
21 implemented commercially. (Br. 11: 6-10).
22
23 First, we observe that this passage of the brief is attorney argument,
24 not evidence. No evidence whatsoever is put forth that monitoring traffic
25 speeds from telephone poles is not practical. There is no persuasive
26 declaration evidence to support any of these assertions. Second, the
27 Appellant has pointed to no authority for its proposition that a reference
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013