Appeal No. 96-0323
Application 08/131,684
unpatentable over Shimizu in view of Kageyama as above,
further in view of Nishikawa.
We affirm for the reasons given by the examiner,
amplified as follows.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 10-11
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 10-11 stand or fall together with
Claim 1 because appellants have presented no arguments for the
separate patentability of the claims under 37 CFR § 1.192.
The examiner contends that Kageyama suggested replacing
Shimizu’s vehicle speed detecting means 43 with Kageyama’s
vehicle speed detecting means 17. According to the examiner,
such a replacement would have been seen by the artisan as a
way to improve Shimizu’s power steering control. Examiner’s
Answer at 9.
Appellants argue that Shimizu and Kageyama do not suggest
the desirability of such a modification because Shimizu’s
power steering control only needs to know whether the vehicle
speed is high, medium, or low and has no need for improved
vehicle speed information. Appeal Brief at 6.
We agree with the examiner. Shimizu estimates vehicle
speed by using wheel speed sensors. Kageyama teaches that
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007