Appeal No. 2002-1641
Application No. 09/276,213
vibrations are damped and at the same time, the performance of
the braking control intervention itself is not substantially
impaired. Independent claims 1 and 10 are representative of the
subject matter on appeal and a copy of those claims can be found
in the Appendix to appellant's brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Ghoneim 4,947,332 Aug. 7, 1990
Schaefer et al. 5,193,889 Mar. 16, 1993
(Schaefer)
Sone et al. (Sone) 5,584,541 Dec. 17, 1996
Claims 1, 2 and 4 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schaefer in view of Ghoneim.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schaefer in view of Ghoneim as applied to claim
1 above, and further in view of Sone.
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellant
regarding those rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
22
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007