Appeal No. 2002-1574 Page 2
Application No. 09/280,921
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a device and method for controlling at least
one operating-dynamics variable of a vehicle in a closed loop. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claims 1 and 20, which have
been reproduced in the appendix to the Brief.
The single prior art reference of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting
the appealed claims is:
Jonner et al. (Jonner) 5,826,950 Oct. 27, 1998
Claims 1, 2, 17-21 and 23-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Jonner.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 20) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection, and to
the Brief (Paper No. 19) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 21) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007