Appeal No. 2004-0623
Application 09/293,923
Claim 7 stands rejected as being anticipated3 by Karagiannis, which is directed to
a system incorporating an engine immobilizer with an electric brake system. It is the
examiner’s position in the final rejection that “the electric parking brake is disengaged by
the operation of a switch 17 which is ‘manually actuated’ after the electronic engine
immobilizer has been disengaged” (Paper No. 15, sentence bridging pages 4 and 5).
However, after the appellant pointed out in the Brief that switch 17 is engaged after the
brake already has been released and thus does not disengage the brake, as is required
by the claim, in the Answer the examiner departed from the original position to the
extent of stating that “[i]t is clear . . . that a switch is actuated or pushed, consequently
releases [sic, releasing] the brakes” (page 5, emphasis added).
On page 2 of the translation, Karagiannis explains that “at the time the vehicle
motor is switched on, the switch or an additional switch is actuated that activates the
brake actuation mechanism to release the brake.” Further detail is provided on page 3
of the translation, where it is explained in line 20 et seq. that when the ignition key is
operated to start the vehicle engine, switch 2 causes contacts to close and power to be
applied to electric motor 7, which allows cable 13a to be payed out under the action of
spring 15 to release the brakes until power to motor 7 is interrupted by rod 12 causing
switch 17 to close, which occurs after the brakes are disengaged.
3Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under the
principles of inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention. See, for example, RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007