Appeal No. 2004-1109
Application No. 09/754,686
appellants’ invention to have used the standard dual master
cylinder as taught by the Complete Car Care Manual, with a
bellows membrane or emulator as shown by Sasaki and Campau, with
all emulators integral with the master cylinder as taught by
Feigel, in the braking system of Campau to improve the “pedal
feel” of the system (id. at pages 3-4). We agree.
Appellants concede that “the individual elements of the
instant invention may be taught separately” by Campau, the
Complete Car Care Manual, Sasaki, and Feigel (Reply Brief, page
3). Furthermore, appellants admit that a “known device” that
mimics pedal feel includes an elastomeric spring emulator that is
integrated with the master cylinder (specification, page 1, ll.
24-27).4 However, appellants’ principal argument is that none of
the references, alone or in combination, disclose or suggest that
emulators are “integral” with the master cylinder, i.e.,
“constituent parts, so combined as to constitute a unitary whole”
(Brief, pages 5-6). Appellants additionally argue that the
4It is axiomatic that admitted prior art in an applicant’s
specification may be used in determining the patentability of a
claimed invention (In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 570-71, 184 USPQ
607, 611-12 (CCPA 1975)); and that consideration of the prior art
cited by the examiner may include consideration of the admitted
prior art found in an applicant’s specification (In re Davis, 305
F.2d 501, 503, 134 USPQ 256, 258 (CCPA 1962); cf., In re Hedges,
783 F.2d 1038, 1039-40, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007