Appeal No. 96-3333
Application 08/295,194
none of the references addresses the problem that is being solved by the appellants'
invention, which is controlling the steering of the vehicle using the braking system of the
vehicle independent of driver actuation of the braking controls.
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the Examiner . Upon evaluation of all
the evidence before us, it is our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the examiner is
not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 7.
Claim 6 contains similar limitations with respect to activating the wheel brakes
independently of the driver- actuated brake controls. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
examiner's rejection of claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Since all the limitations of independent claims 6 and 7 are not suggested by the
applied prior art, we cannot sustain the examiner's rejection of appealed claim 2 which
depends therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007