Appeal No. 98-2121
Application 08/509,669
teachings of Lindenman and Willmann which would fairly suggest the modification which the examiner
has proposed. The entire thrust of Lindenman's invention is to improve over the prior art arrangement
depicted in Fig. 1 by eliminating "the two check valves 8 and 9 and the bypass line 7" (column 2; lines
23 and 24). To this end, Lindenman replaces these elements and the particular type of valve 6 utilized
by the prior art arrangement with a proportioning valve 80 and a pressure differential release valve 31
(see Fig. 3) that during normal braking permits (1) the flow of fluid from the master cylinder through the
valve 31 to the main brake line 52, 57 and then to the rear brakes 60, 70 and (2) the automatic return
flow of the fluid back through the valve 31 to the master cylinder when braking ceases. While
Willmann broadly teaches a "cut-off" valve 70 that is used in a braking system during traction control, if
such a valve were utilized in Lindenman in lieu of the pressure differential release valve 31, Lindenman's
device would no longer operate in the intended manner. Thus, we do not believe that it would have
been obvious to provide the anti-lock braking system of Lindenman with a "cut-off" valve as taught by
Willmann since to do so would destroy the invention upon which Lindenman was based, namely,
providing a valve which permits the automatic return flow of the fluid back through the valve to the
master cylinder when braking ceases. See Ex parte Hartmann, 186 USPQ 366, 367 (Bd. App.
1974). The examiner may not pick and chose from any one reference only so much of it as will support
a given position, to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference
fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art (Bausch & Lomb, Inc., v. Barnes-Hind/Hydrocurve
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007