Appeal 2007-0370
Application 09/951,560
1 also observe that reporting a satellite detected overspeed situation is
2 described in Vaughn and Horvat. (FF 025 and 033).
3 The Appellant has not put forth any persuasive evidence or argument
4 that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for law
5 enforcement to ticket a vehicle violation. Accordingly, this last argument is
6 also unpersuasive.
7 ii) Claim 9.
8 The Appellant urges that
9 Claim 9 requires that the “controller includes means for
10 instructing said transmitter to transmit the violation signal only
11 when exceeding of the speed limit by the vehicle continues
12 entirely through and beyond the predetermined amount of time
13 defined by said delay means” and that said delay means is
14 within the controller” (Br. 12: 21 - 13: 1).
15
16 According to the Appellant, the cited art fails to teach these
17 limitations, and there is no suggestion or motivation in the cited art for a
18 combination which would result in claim 9. (Id. ll. 2-7).
19 The Examiner found that Angeloni teaches using a delay means in the
20 vehicle for allowing a vehicle’s speed to be above the posted speed limit for
21 a predetermined amount of time before determining a violation occurred.
22 The Examiner also found that the control then activates a transmitter to
23 transmit the violation signal only when the speed limit is exceeded through
24 and beyond the predetermined amount of time defined by the delay means.
25 (Office Action, February 25, 2004, p. 6, ll.4-10).
26 Procedurally, the Appellant has failed to identify an error in the
27 examiner's finding to the contrary. Simply reciting what the claims recite is
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013