Appeal 2007-0370
Application 09/951,560
1 posted speed plus a predetermined value (8:59-61). The overspeed violation
2 can then be reported to law enforcement. (9:24-26).
3 If the Appellant’s counsel is suggesting that it was not well known or
4 that it was an inherent function of law enforcement to issue warnings or
5 tickets for traffic law infractions, we reject that notion.
6 As there is no persuasive merit to this argument, we affirm this
7 rejection as it applies to claim 14.
8 (vi) Claim 15
9 Appellant urges that:
10 -Vaughn and Horvat fail to disclose or suggest issuing tickets or
11 infractions when a traffic violation is detected.
12 - Vaughn would not be modified to issue a ticket because that
13 would destroy the functionality of Vaughn’s system. (Br. 17-18).
14 As we have previously found these contentions to be meritless, we
15 again note that they are unpersuasive. We note that Vaughn itself suggests
16 notification of the appropriate authorities. How, then that would “destroy
17 the purpose and functionality of Vaughn’s system” (Br. 18) is not evident to
18 us.
19 The Appellant also urges that “both cited references fail to disclose or
20 suggest ‘storing information relating to said infraction or ticket in memory
21 on the vehicle’ as required by claim 15.” (Br. 18)(emphasis in original).
22 We find this representation to be in direct conflict with the discussion
23 in Horvat:
24 If there is a violation based on the speed limit received from the
25 monitor transceiver, the driver is alerted with a short signal from
26 alarm 42. If the violation is less than 5 miles per hour over the limit,
19
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013