Appeal 2007-2032
Application 10/275,102
1 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a final rejection
2 of claims 15-34. Claims 1-14 have been cancelled. (Br. 3.) We have
3 jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
4 Appellant invented a control/evaluation system for a set of sensors. In
5 particular, the system is for use in motor vehicles. (Specification 1.)
6 The only independent claim under appeal reads as follows:
7 15. A control and evaluation system for a set of sensor devices,
8 comprising:
9 at least one controller and sensor devices connected to the at
10 least one controller in each of a plurality of areas, the at least one
11 controller of each of the plurality of areas being connected to one
12 another, the at least one controller being for controlling and evaluating
13 sensor signals of the sensor devices; and
14 at least another controller device connected to the at least one
15 controller for performing at least one of a pre-crash function, a
16 parking assistance function and an airbag function.
17
18 The Examiner rejected claims 15-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
19 being anticipated by Gunderson.
20 The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
21 appeal is:
22 Gunderson US 6,642,839 B1 Nov. 4, 2003
23
24 Appellant contends (Br. 9) that
25 [t]he “Gunderson” references refer to a system having a first and
26 second stand alone sensor module connected to a display module. In
27 particular, the “Gunderson” reference refers to a system in which
28 sensor devices (12, 18) are connected to the controllers (400, 402).
29 According to “Gunderson”, any applications are in the stand alone
30 modules (400, 402) (see col. 8, lines 19 to 34). The “Gunderson”
31 reference therefore does not identically describe (or even suggest) the
32 features of connecting the controllers which control and evaluate
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013