Appeal 2007-2032
Application 10/275,102
1 vehicle to stop or slow down or activate warning lights or signs. From fact
2 12 we find that the sensor module, which includes processor or
3 microcontroller 10, receives inputs and determines whether or not a hazard
4 exists. However, fusing data and providing status information is not a
5 description of a controller connected to another controller which receives the
6 sensor information. Rather, from the description of Gunderson, we find that
7 the centralized computer system of Gunderson will fuse the data from the
8 sensors and provide the information to the microcontroller in the sensor
9 module, but Gunderson does not describe a second controller connected to
10 the controller 10.
11 Thus, we find that we would have to resort to unfounded speculation
12 to arrive at a determination that Gunderson describes, expressly or
13 inherently, "at least another controller device connected to the at least one
14 controller for performing at least one of a pre-crash function, a parking
15 assistance function and an airbag function."
16 The examiner may not resort to speculation or unfounded assumptions
17 to supply deficiencies in establishing a factual basis. See In re Warner, 379
18 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA).
19
20 CONCLUSION OF LAW
21 On the record before us, Appellants have shown that Gunderson does
22 not anticipate claims 15-34 as advanced by the Examiner. The rejection of
23 claims 15-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013