Appeal No. 1997-0202
Application No. 08/247,709
first and second threshold levels combined with the overriding of
the requirement to reach the first threshold level on receipt of
signals from the ABS system. In our view, even assuming arguendo
that the Examiner’s proposed combination could be made, the
resulting system would not meet the particular requirements of
Claim 16. Since there is nothing in the disclosure of either
Ehrlich or Freeman that would suggest the particular overriding
operating sequence as claimed, we can not sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claim 16.
With respect to independent claim 39, Appellants essentially
reiterate their assertion that Ehrlich is deficient in disclosing
the threshold level feature as claimed. While we found
Appellants’ arguments concerning Ehrlich to be persuasive with
respect to independent claims 9 and 16 as discussed above, we
reach the opposite conclusion with respect to independent claim
39. A review of claim 39 reveals a recitation of the three
threshold level conditions appearing as sub-paragraphs (i)-(iii)
which are similar to the recitations in claim 9 discussed
previously. These sub-paragraphs are preceded, however, by
qualifying language in sub-paragraph c) which recites:
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007