Appeal No. 98-2121
Application 08/509,669
We REVERSE.
The appellants' invention pertains to a traction control device the nature of which may be readily
ascertained by perusal of claim 1. A copy of claim 1 may be found in APPENDIX 1 of the brief.2
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Lindenman 4,969,697 Nov. 13, 1990
Willmann 5,188,435 Feb. 23, 1993
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lindenman in
view of Willmann. According to the examiner:
Lindenman shows a slip control system including: cut off valve 31, outlet
valve/inlet valve 56, auxiliary pressure source 64, auxiliary reservoir 72, and
proportioning valve 80. Also note auxiliary pressure line (29,52). The proportioning
valve 80 is mounted in the main brake lines and it is upstream of the cut-off valves
(30,31) and likewise it is downstream from the pump from the branching point near 52.
[Answer, pages 3 and 4.]
Thereafter, the examiner (1) states that the claimed invention differs from Lindenman only in that the
cut-off valve is a traction control valve and (2) concludes that it would have been obvious to have
utilized a solenoid cut-off valve "as the valve" in Lindenman in view of the teachings of Willmann "since
it has long been a common standard in the art to adapt ABS brake systems to provide traction control"
(answer, page 4).
We will not support the examiner's position. In our view, there is nothing in the combined
2In line 7 of claim 1 (as it appears in the appendix) we interpret "a master cylinder" to be -- the
master cylinder --.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007