Appeal 2006-2825
Application 10/691,916
hydraulic fluid within a hydraulic braking system and is thus a “hydraulic
braking conduit” as recited in claim 1.
While Kessler evidences that electrically-actuated hydraulic brakes
were known in the art at the time of Appellants’ invention, neither Toomey
nor Kessler teaches or suggests an emergency stop device which responds to
the omission of the electric current, the emergency stop device supplying a
braking signal to the electric magnet for the actuation of the second
hydraulic braking cylinder in case of omission of the current, as called for in
claim 1 (FF5 and FF10). The redundant double windings 52, 53 provided on
Kessler’s solenoid 22 merely provide two independent winding paths for
passage of current to permit the solenoid to operate to provide braking
power in the event that current is lost to either of the windings. The
redundant winding does not change its operation or react in response to
omission of current to the other winding but, rather, merely continues to
provide a path for passage of current. The Examiner therefore erred in
determining that the combination of Toomey and Kessler would have
suggested “an emergency stop device being provided which responds to the
omission of the electric current, the emergency stop device supplying a
braking signal to the electric magnet for the actuation of the second
hydraulic braking cylinder in case of omission of the current” as called for in
claim 1. The rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2-10 depending from
claim 1, cannot be sustained.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013