Ex Parte Sielagoski et al - Page 7

                 Appeal 2007-1288                                                                                     
                 Application 10/195,744                                                                               
                        In view of the above discussion, it is apparent to us that Minowa’s                           
                 disclosure (page 7, second col. ll. 1-7) of determining vehicle speed and                            
                 limiting the maximum vehicle deceleration based on the determination of                              
                 vehicle speed satisfies all of the requirements of appealed claims 1 and 9.1                         
                 Accordingly, since all of the claimed limitations are present in the disclosure                      
                 of Minowa, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 1 and 9 is                          
                 sustained.                                                                                           

                                            35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION                                              
                        Appellants’ arguments (Br. 9-10) in response to the Examiner’s                                
                 obviousness rejection of dependent claims 17 and 18 based on the                                     
                 combination of Minowa and Grosseau assert a failure by the Examiner to                               
                 establish a prima facie case of obviousness since all of the claimed                                 
                 limitations are not taught or suggested by the applied Minowa and Grosseau                           
                 references.  Initially, Appellant reiterates (Br. 9) the arguments that Minowa                       
                 does not disclose the setting of maximum allowed vehicle deceleration in an                          
                 adaptive speed control system, which arguments we found to be                                        
                 unpersuasive as discussed supra.                                                                     
                        Further, to whatever extent Appellants are suggesting (Brief 10) that                         
                 the Examiner’s proposed combination of Minowa and Grosseau must fail                                 
                 since Grosseau does not provide a disclosure of adaptive vehicle speed                               
                 control, we find such contention to be without merit since the Examiner has                          
                 relied upon Minowa for this teaching.  It is apparent from the Examiner’s                            
                                                                                                                     
                 1 While the portion of the Minowa reference relied on by the Examiner is                             
                 actually Minowa’s dependent claim 4, Appellants correctly recognize (Reply                           
                 Br. 2) that all portions of a reference may be relied upon by an Examiner in                         
                 making a rejection.                                                                                  
                                                          7                                                           

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013