Appeal 2007-0818
Application 10/601,448
1 9, 2006. Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
2 over Shono in view of Raad and Karnopp. The Examiner’s rejection is set forth on
3 page 4 of the Final Office action mailed March 9, 2006. Throughout the opinion
4 we make reference to the Brief and Reply Brief (received July 8, 2006 and
5 November 14, 2006 respectively), and the Answer (mailed September 14, 2006)
6 for the respective details thereof.
7 ISSUES
8 Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 24,
9 33, and 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in error. Appellants assert that Shono
10 teaches that when vehicle acceleration is above a value G2, the leveling operation
11 is discontinued. However, Appellants argue that Shono does not teach a second
12 lower threshold value for determining that leveling should be resumed. (Br. 6.)
13 The Examiner asserts that the rejection is proper. The Examiner, on page 3
14 of the Answer, states that selecting a second lower acceleration value would be
15 obvious as it involves “discovering the optimum or workable ranges.” See page 3
16 of the Answer. Further, on page 4 of the Answer, the Examiner equates Shono’s
17 first acceleration threshold value (the lower value G1) with Appellants’ claimed
18 “second pre-determined threshold” and Shono’s second acceleration threshold
19 value (the higher value G2) with Appellants’ claimed “first pre-determined
20 threshold.”
21 Thus, the issue before us is whether Shono teaches or suggests use of a
22 second lower threshold acceleration value for determining that leveling should be
23 resumed.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013