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