Appeal No. 96-3333
Application 08/295,194
appellants' argument concerning the independent operation is not persuasive because the
Examiner questions the independent operation of the present invention. (See answer at
pages 5-6.) Appellant addresses the Examiner's inquiry concerning the operation of the
invention in the reply at pages 1-3. The Examiner did not respond to the clarification by
appellant which addressed the operation of the claimed invention with respect to the
actuation of the braking actuators independent of the operation of the driver actuated
brake controls. Once the examiner has established a reasonable basis to question the
obviousness of the claimed invention, the burden falls on the appellants to present
persuasive arguments in response thereto. Appellants have traversed the Examiner's
prima facie case of obviousness, in the brief and the reply, therefore the burden shifts
back to the Examiner to rebut the appellants' arguments. The Examiner has not provided
argument or clarification concerning the independent operation of the claimed invention.
The Examiner has not shown in the teachings of Ito or Hattori nor provided a convincing
line of reasoning as to how or why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to modify the combined teachings of Ito and Hattori to
achieve the invention as recited in the language of claim 7.
Appellants argue the steering and sensing performed by the claimed invention.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007