Appeal No. 2000-1481 Page 5
Application No. 08/950,130
USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d
1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
The examiner determined (answer, pp. 2-3) that Cook shows
a PBM control algorithm (see table 3a)[.] The term
integral-based is meaningless. The PBM control algorithm
of Cook et al. is integral based to the same degree
claimed. Cook et al. further show a control current of 1
milliamp (see column 8, lines 42-55) and a high stepping
current of 10 milliamps which is utilized if the PBM is
greater than the LOW PBM. Since LOW PBM is a value which
is set to a value which is based on a vehicle speed (see
column 8, lines 48-68) then the LOW PBM has different
values at low and high speeds. The claimed invention
differs only in the use of a multi-gain valve. It would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
have utilized a multi-gain valve in the system of Cook et
al. instead of a single gain valve so as to more
precisely control the brake pressure or as a substitute
of known valve types.
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 12-14) that Cook does 1
not teach the dual-PBM threshold concept that underlies the
present invention wherein the first threshold triggers a
highstep firing at high wheelspeeds and the second threshold
triggers a highstep firing at low wheelspeeds. In the reply
1The teachings of Cook are adequately set forth on pages
8-11 of the brief.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007