Appeal No. 96-3156
Application 08/304,333
brake. The teaching of Arikawa upon which the examiner relies is
found at column 9, lines 62-66 and reads as follows: “In the
above embodiment, the one three-port three position valve [36,
etc.] is provided for the one wheel brake apparatus.
Alternatively, two two-port two-position valves or an inlet valve
and an outlet valve may be used for the one wheel brake.”
THE REJECTION
Claims 4-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Steiner in view of Arikawa.
In rejecting the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the
examiner has taken the position that the valves (39) and (42) of
Steiner function in basically the same way as appellants’
integral control and isolation valve (e.g., valve 58). From this
starting point, the examiner proceeds as follows:
Steiner et al fail to teach the use of a single
“integral control and isolation valve” in place of
valves 39 and 47. Arikawa teaches the well known
substitution of a single valve for two separate
valve[s] in an antilock/traction control brake system
(col. 9, lines 62-66). One of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention would have found it
obvious to provide the brake system of Steiner et al
with a single “integral control and isolation valve” in
place of the valves 39 and 47, in view of the teaching
of Arikawa, as such would provide the same fluid
connections while reducing manufacture cost and
assembly time by reducing the number of components.
[answer (Paper No. 14)), page 5]
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007