Appeal No. 2005-0354
Application No. 09/399,412
substantially maximum adhesion between wheels being braked and rail surfaces in
contact with such wheels such that braking energy is substantially evenly distributed to
all of such wheels” and “communicating a signal representative of such pressure
determined in step (d) to a pressure control valve in fluid communication with such
brake cylinders.” Nor do we find that the examiner has provided a convincing line of
reasoning as to why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention to have a determination by an on-board computer rather than to
use the predetermined speed/adhesion profile taught by Fourie. (Fourie at col. 8, lines
39- col. 9, line 39.)
Additionally, while Cook provides motivation to equalize the braking energy
absorbed by each car or truck in a mag-lev train (Cook at col. 1, lines 42-48), we do
not find a recognition or suggestion of the claimed “using said velocity dependence of
wheel to rail adhesion in maintaining a maximum pressure on such brake cylinders that
will stop such train consist in a shortest possible distance while simultaneously
substantially preventing wheel slide along said rails, minimizing variation in wheel
temperatures, and substantially evenly distributing braking energy to all of such wheels”
in the combination of Cook and Fourie. Since we do not find that the examiner has
shown how the combined teachings of Cook and Fourie either teaches or fairly
suggests the invention as recited in independent claim 1, we cannot sustain the
rejection of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims. Similarly, we do not find that
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007