Appeal No. 96-4156
Application 08/218,135
Appellants' arguments thereagainst. Since the Examiner
entered all new grounds of rejection over different prior art
in the Examiner's Answer, the Final Rejection (Paper No. 10)
is moot. The Brief (Paper No. 19) (pages referred to as
"Br__") is still relevant for its Summary of the Invention
(Br2-6).
OPINION
The Examiner does not rely on the admission of prior art
in the specification, but applies Yamamoto and O'Neil.
Yamamoto discloses a power steering system having an electric
motor for assisting in rotating the steering shaft when the
sensed steering torque is too great (abstract). Yamamoto does
not have a "reaction control means" or "failure detecting
means," which are admitted by Appellants to have been known in
the art (specification, page 2, lines 13-28; Br3-4). Thus,
the Examiner has not started the rejection in the best
possible position.
O'Neil discloses a "steer-by-wire" system for large
vehicles whose steered wheels are turned by hydraulic
actuators. The system is essentially a torque demand control
where torque at the steered wheels is a more powerful copy of
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007