Appeal No. 1999-0365
Application 08/601,724
We agree with appellant that a range of resistance
loads to simulate dynamic driving conditions as recited in
claims 19 and 49 is not taught or suggested by the applied
prior art for the reasons set forth by appellant in the main
brief. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claims 19 and 49 or of the claims which depend
therefrom.
In summary, we have not sustained any of the
examiner’s rejections of the appealed claims. Therefore, the
decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-20, 29, 31, 38-47,
49, 59, 61, 63-68 and 72-77 is reversed.
REVERSED
)
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007