Ex Parte Svendenius et al - Page 2

           Appeal 2007-1454                                                                         
           Application 11/088,528                                                                   

        1        Appellants claim a vehicle brake system wherein the system is operative to         
        2  determine a target position of a movable brake component and to control actuation        
        3  of the brake component based on the current position of the component.                   
        4        Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed subject          
        5  matter:                                                                                  
        6              1.  A vehicle brake system comprising:                                       
        7              a brake actuator associated with a tire, said brake actuator having at       
        8        least one moveable brake component;                                                
        9              a brake control system operative to determine a target position of the       
       10        at least one moveable brake component based at least in part upon a                
       11        relationship between an actual tire/road friction force and a target tire/road     
       12        friction force; and                                                                
       13              wherein said brake control system is operable to control actuation of        
       14        said brake actuator based at least in part upon the target position of the at      
       15        least one moveable brake component and at least in part based upon a               
       16        current position of the at least one moveable brake component.                     
       17                                                                                           
       18        The reference of record relied upon by the Examiner as evidence of                 
       19  anticipation and obviousness is:                                                         
       20        Matsumoto               US 5,001,640           Mar. 19, 1991                       
       21                                                                                           
       22        Claims 1-48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  112, first paragraph, as failing      
       23  to comply with the enablement requirement.                                               
       24        Claims 1, 2, 6-11, 14, 18-22, 25, 26, 30-35, 38 and 42-46 stand rejected           
       25  under 35 U.S.C.  102(b) as anticipated by Matsumoto.                                    
       26        Claims 12, 13, 23, 24, 36, 37, 47, and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.          
       27  103 as unpatentable over Matsumoto.                                                      
       28        Claims 1, 2, 6-14, 18-26, 30-38, 42-48 stand provisionally rejected under the      
       29  judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable         
       30  over claims 1-8, 14-17, 21-32, 37-40, and 44-46 of co-pending application                

                                                 2                                                  


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013