Appeal 2007-0677
Application 10/708,677
1 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Deng or Gerum in view of
2 Mizusawa. The Examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 3 and 4 of the
3 Answer. Claims 5 through 10 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
4 § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Deng or Gerum in view of Mizusawa
5 and Hrazdera. The Examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 5 and 6 of the
6 Answer. Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
7 unpatentable over Deng or Gerum in view of Mizusawa and Yoshioka. The
8 Examiner’s rejection is set forth on page 6 of the Answer. Throughout the
9 opinion we make reference to the Brief and Reply Brief (received August
10 12, 2005 and August 1, 2006 respectively), and the Answer (mailed June 2,
11 2006) for the respective details thereof.
12 ISSUES
13 Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection of independent
14 claims 1, 12 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in error. Appellants argue
15 that both Deng and Gerum teach systems which calculate the current
16 position of the trailer but that they do not teach determining a predicted
17 position of a trailer. Further, Appellants argue that in combination with
18 Mizusawa, the references do not teach displaying both the current and
19 predicted position of the trailer.
20 The Examiner asserts that the rejection is proper. The Examiner, on
21 page 7 of the Answer, equates the “desired hitch angle” of Deng with the
22 claimed predicted position. The Examiner also equates the determination of
23 a jackknife condition in Gerum with the claimed predicted position.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013