Appeal No. 2004-1109
Application No. 09/754,686
examiner has not demonstrated any suggestion or motivation for
combining the prior art references to arrive at the claimed
invention, nor shown any reasonable expectation of success (Reply
Brief, pages 3-4).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. As correctly
stated by the examiner, Feigel teaches making the simulator
(emulator) integral with the master cylinder, specifically
teaching the option of having the simulator apart or integral
with the master cylinder, although the option of having the
simulator integral with the master cylinder is preferable (see
Figures 1 and 2; col. 1, l. 46-col. 2, l. 4, especially col. 1,
l. 61; and col. 2, ll. 14-19). Additionally, we note that Campau
teaches, at col. 15, ll. 32-50:
It should be noted that many of the components
described and illustrated as discrete components may be
easily combined in a single compact housing. For
example, the master cylinder 12, the isolation valves
22a and 22b, the simulator valve 28, the pedal
simulator 26 ... could be integrated into one unit with
or without the reservoir 20 included therein.
. . .
Indeed, it is contemplated that any or all of the
components discussed in this paragraph could be highly
integrated into one unit.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007