Appeal No. 2000-1475 Page 5
Application No. 08/844,016
pressure is limited to the master cylinder pressure (65).
Thus, there is no correction of the pressure command
signals. In accordance with the teaching of Rivera [sic,
Rivard] et al, these signals are merely taken as it,
without any correction whatsoever.
Further, the present invention details a correction
of the driver's wish signal according to the operating
state of the regulating means and/or the value of at
lease one flow rate in the brake system takes place.
There simply is no teaching or suggestion in Rivard et
al. regarding how to take into account the operating
status of the regulating means and/or a flow rate value
of the brake system when forming a driver's wish signal.
As such, the applicants' invention clearly differs from
disclosure of Rivard et al.
The examiner's response (answer, p. 3) to the appellants'
argument was that
[c]ontrary to Appellants contention, Rivard et al.
does show determination of at least one of the status of
means for regulating brake pressure in that anti-lock
control is such a regulating means. In addition, Rivard
et al. clearly states in claim 4 that the driver wish
value (operator commanded vehicle decleration) is
corrected based on the measured pressure via sensor 31
and the anti-lock control during measured vehicle
deceleration. Rivard et al. additionally teaches
measurement of the flow rate in controlling brake
pressure according to an operator command as discussed in
column 7, lines 1-18.
OPINION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007