Appeal No. 1999-1735 Page 9
Application No. 08/745,978
thus the obviousness, of making the combination. See In re
Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir.
1992); Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. American Hoist and
Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1462, 221 USPQ 481, 488 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
In this case, the prior art (i.e., Hoenick and Akita) 3
clearly teach two well-known alternative pumping systems for
suppling braking fluid to the brake actuator. In Hoenick's
system, the housing of various braking equipment in the engine
compartment is obviated by having an independent braking
system for each wheel. Each of Hoenick's independent braking4
systems include a unidirectional pump 1 with associated valves
4, 9 for controlling the flow of braking fluid to and from the
reservoir R and the brake actuator 8. In Akita's system, a
bidirectional gear pump 20 is in direct hydraulic
communication (i.e., has an always open/unimpeded flow path)
3We consider the teachings of Rath to be redundant to the
teachings of Hoenick. Accordingly, we will not further
consider the teachings of Rath.
4See column 6, lines 1-16.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007