Appeal 2007-1288
Application 10/195,744
which functions to control vehicle speed by limiting vehicle
acceleration/deceleration based on detected speed and road conditions,
thereby “adapting” the vehicle speed control to the sensed conditions, can be
considered anything other than “adaptive.” Similarly, Appellants’
arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, we find nothing in the language
of the appealed claims which precludes control of vehicle deceleration in
response to a driver request for deceleration.
We further find to be without merit Appellants’ arguments attacking
the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim language “setting a maximum
allowed vehicle deceleration.” According to Appellants (Reply Br. 5),
Minowa only determines an actual vehicle deceleration value, not a
maximum allowed value relative to the actual value. As with Appellants’
previous arguments, however, we find such argument to be not
commensurate with the scope of claims 1 and 9.
The system of Minowa, as correctly characterized by Appellants
(Reply Br. 4), is a driver override system in which, dependent on detected
speed conditions, a driver’s request for a specific deceleration value may be
overridden and the vehicle deceleration limited to determined maximum
allowed value. The fact that the actual vehicle deceleration implemented by
the system of Minowa is equal to the maximum determined allowed
deceleration is not precluded by the language of claims 1 and 9. While
Appellants are correct (Reply Br. 5) that in their disclosed invention, the
actual vehicle deceleration “may” be a value different from the maximum
allowed deceleration value, such a requirement is not present in the claims
before us on appeal.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013