Appeal No. 2002-1590 Page 10
Application No. 09/511,516
forth in claim 9, since a force above a predetermined level
applied by the vehicle operator to the brake pedal (12) would be
sufficient to cause movement of outer rod section (6) over the
projection (25c) and thereby allow collapse of the push rod
during normal driving operations.
Moreover, with regard to both independent claims 9 and 17,
we are of the opinion that the examiner’s conclusion that the
control mechanism of Okuhara is operable or deployed upon
experiencing a predetermined deceleration (answer, page 8), is
based entirely on speculation and conjecture. There is no
indication in Okuhara of any such operation of the system therein
and, in our opinion, no basis to conclude that any such operation
would be inherent.2 Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of
claims 9 through 11, 14, 15, 17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Okuhara (Figures 4A, 4B) will not be
sustained.
With regard to the examiner’s rejection of claims 13 and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Hjerpe and Cannon, and the
2 As is made clear in Okuhara (e.g., col. 1, lines 57-64 and col. 5,
lines 47-60), it is the retreating movement of the master cylinder (M) toward
the vehicle compartment as a result of a frontal collision of the vehicle that
applies an axial compressing force larger than the predetermined force to the
push rod (10), if the driver’s foot is on the brake pedal (12), and which
causes the coupling means seen in Figures 4A and 4B of the patent to be
released to permit the rod segments (25) and (26) to slide relative to each
other, not vehicle deceleration.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007