Appeal No. 2002-1574 Page 5
Application No. 09/280,921
point, we agree with the Examiner that “[r]egardless of whether or not the wheel slip
control is always actuated . . . when wheel slip control in Jonner does occur . . . the
limitations of the claim are met” (Answer, page 7; emphasis added), as can be
discerned from the explanation beginning at line 53 of column 4. The broad language
of the claim merely requires that “the system adjusts a particular brake pressure of the
particular cylinder [exhibiting a highest brake pressure] in response to a driver-
independent brake actuation, the particular brake pressure being adjusted by driving
the second valve arrangement.” The Examiner correctly points out that when wheel slip
does exceed a predetermined limit value or falls outside an acceptable range, the slip
control cycle (i.e., the driver-independent brake actuation) is initiated and the particular
brake pressure of the particular cylinder exhibiting the highest brake pressure is
adjusted by driving the second valve arrangement 118 (Answer, page 7).
Appellants further take note of Jonner’s explanation in the Abstract that “the
pressure level in the wheel brake with the highest pressure level is modulated by driving
a switching valve USV [118] which affects the pressure in all the wheel brakes of the
brake circuit” (Reply Brief, page 2), arguing that the rejection fails because the Jonner
system differs on this point from what is claimed in the instant application. We do not
agree. The fact that the system disclosed in Jonner, when effecting a “modulation” of
the pressure in the wheel brake with the highest pressure level, affects the pressure in
all the wheel brakes, does not cause the rejection to be defective for, despite the fact
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007