Appeal 2007-2032
Application 10/275,102
1 signals from associated sensors to additional controllers, which
2 realize the application functionality (whereas the first controllers do
3 not realize such functionality), as in claim 15 as presented, so that
4 claim 15 is allowable.
5
6 Appellants additionally contend (Reply Br. 4) that the centralized computer
7 system of Gunderson only refers to a central information source or display
8 and not to another controller connected to the other controllers. It is
9 additionally contended (id.) that only the processor 10 is referred to as
10 providing a controller function in Gunderson. The Examiner contends
11 (Answer 4) that
12 the “at least one controller device connected to the at least one
13 controller for performing at least one of a pre-crash function, a
14 parking assistance function and an airbag function” is either each
15 processor 10 of each of the plurality of sensor modules 400 being
16 connected together as shown in at least Figs. 4 and 12, for a common
17 function, namely, collision avoidance, or it is an additional processor
18 or (mirco)controller or central computer – separate from the other
19 stand alone modules (controllers) – which performs various collision-
20 avoidance, collision warning, safety, or other processing steps. See at
21 least col. 14, lines 23-28, or col. 14, lines 50-55, regarding the
22 additional central computer.
23
24 The Examiner additionally contends (Answer 11) that Gunderson makes
25 reference to a centralized computer system for a scalable, vehicle collision
26 avoidance system. We make reference to page 11 of the Answer for the
27 portions of Gunderson relied upon by the Examiner.
28 We reverse.
29 ISSUE
30 Have Appellants shown that Gunderson fails to anticipate claim 15 by
31 showing that Gunderson fails to describe "at least another controller device
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013