Appeal No. 2002-1641
Application No. 09/276,213
For the reasons set forth in appellant's brief and reply
brief, we find the examiner's position to be untenable. Like
appellant, we note that the system and method in Schaefer, upon
detection of a wheel vibration during ABS or ASR intervention
modes, appear to initiate corrective action to suppress the
vibration whether or not the condition which required initiation
of the ABS or ASR intervention continues, thus apparently
mandating vibration suppression at the expense of the ABS or ASR
closed-loop control. See, for example, Schaefer, column 2,
lines 20-27, wherein it is noted that in the event of a wheel
vibration, further actuation of the valve (16) associated with
the vehicle wheel is suppressed upon the vibration reaching a
first threshold. By contrast, appellant's method and device
ascertain a vibration at at least one wheel and also ascertain a
tendency of a characteristic of the slippage during the vibration
at the at least one wheel by comparing a subsequent slippage
value to a previous slippage value, and then influence the
braking force applied during the vibration as a function of the
ascertained tendency, thereby apparently more favorably balancing
the required ABS or ASR control and the need for suppression of
wheel vibration.
55
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007