Appeal No. 2000-1475 Page 4
Application No. 08/844,016
Claims 5 to 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Rivard. As stated on page 3 of the
answer, this rejection is set forth in the first Office
action. With regard to this rejection, the first Office
action (p. 3) provided "[t]he various steps recited in claims
5-10 relate only to matters of routine programming and matters
of choice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to have utilized any of these steps dependent
on the particular type of vehicle utilizing the system."
In the brief (pp. 4-5), the appellants argue that
it is improper to assert Rivard et al. over the present
invention because the present invention concerns the
operating status of the means for regulating brake
pressure at the wheels and/or at least one flow rate in
the brake system are determined in order to correct the
driver's wish value.
By contrast, Rivard et al. simply does not teach
correction of the driver's wish value. Figure 4 therein
shows that the pressure influenced by the driver
(pressure command) is detected by sensors 29 and 31
(125), and conventional braking therein takes place (81)
as long as no slip is detected. If however, slip is
detected, the accelerometer is monitored (63) based on
the master cylinder pressure (pressure command) and the
acceleration (col. 7, lines 39 to 42). If the
accelerometer fails, then the conventional antilock
braking takes place (71), but if the accelerometer works,
then the enhanced antilock braking takes place (7 1). The
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007