Appeal No. 98-2121
Application 08/509,669
Inc., 796 F.2d 443, 448, 230 USPQ 416, 419 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 823 (1987)
and In re Kamm, 452 F.2d 1052, 1057, 172 USPQ 298, 301-02 (CCPA 1972)), and obviousness
cannot be established by locating references which describe various aspects of appellants' invention
without also providing evidence of the motivating force which would impel one skilled in the art to do
what the appellants have done (Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300, 1302 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int.
1993)). Here, the mere fact that, generally speaking, traction control in ABS braking systems might be
the "common standard," does not provide persuasive evidence of such a motivating force.
Moreover, even if the references were combined in the manner proposed by the examiner, the
claimed invention would not result. That is, the claim expressly requires three discrete lines (i.e., three
separate lines), namely, a main brake line, a reflux line and an auxiliary hydraulic pressure line. The
examiner has identified the line 52 of Linderman as being the auxiliary hydraulic pressure line, however,
this line must, at least in part, be a portion of the main line for "connecting wheel cylinders of rear
wheels to a master cylinder," and in which the proportioning valve and traction valve are mounted.
Moreover, line 52 does not connect the "master cylinder and the auxiliary hydraulic pressure device"
(i.e., pump 64) as claimed (note that valve 31 of Lindenman serves to isolate the master cylinder from
the pump when it is operating - see, generally, columns 2 and 4). Still further, while the proportioning
valve 80 of Lindenman is mounted in the main line upstream of the valve 31, it is not "downstream from
a point of branching of the auxiliary line" as claimed. Finally, it does not appear Lindenman has a reflux
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007