Appeal 2007-2032
Application 10/275,102
1 Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
2 As stated in In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581, 212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA
3 1981) (quoting Hansgirg v. Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212, 214, 40 USPQ 665, 667
4 (CCPA 1939)) (internal citations omitted):
5 Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or
6 possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a
7 given set of circumstances is not sufficient. If, however, the
8 disclosure is sufficient to show that the natural result flowing from the
9 operation as taught would result in the performance of the questioned
10 function, it seems to be well settled that the disclosure should be
11 regarded as sufficient.
12
13 ANALYSIS
14 From our review of Gunderson, we find from Fig. 1 that processor 10
15 is within sensor module 100. From fact 5 we find that the information
16 device may be a display module, a centralized computer system, a collision
17 avoidance system, etc. Thus, we agree with the Examiner (Answer 11) that
18 Gunderson describes connecting the sensor module, which includes the
19 processor or microcontroller (fact 10) with a centralized computer. From
20 fact 11, we find that Gunderson describes the stand alone sensor module to
21 be scalable up to a collision avoidance system. From fact 11, we
22 additionally find that "the collision avoidance system operates with a central
23 computer fusing all data received from multiple sensors and providing
24 vehicle status information." In addition, from the description in fact 11 of
25 the collision avoidance system providing full object detection about the
26 periphery of a vehicle, we find that full object detection in a vehicle collision
27 avoidance system is broadly a teaching of a pre-crash function. From fact 8,
28 we find that the sensor module, which includes processor 10, directs the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013