Appeal No. 1999-1735 Page 10
Application No. 08/745,978
with a wheel cylinder 24 or a brake caliper 130. In our
opinion, in applying the above-noted test for obviousness, it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to have modified Hoenick's
braking system to have utilized a bidirectional gear pump for
the self evident advantages thereof (e.g., no need for any
valving between the pump and the brake actuator).
Lastly, the appellants argue that even if the references
were combined as proposed by the examiner, the combination
would still fall short of the claimed invention. We do not
agree. With respect to claim 23,, as pointed out above, it is
our view that the combined teachings of Hoenick and Akita
would have suggested a hydraulic pump disposed substantially
within the housing of piston/cylinder arrangement which is in
direct hydraulic communication with the pressure chamber of
the cylinder/piston arrangement. With respect to claim 25, it
is our view that claimed hydraulic pump "designed to be self-
locking" is readable on the bidirectional gear pump disclosed
by Akita especially in view of the appellants' specification
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007