Appeal No. 1999-0933 Page 3
Application No. 08/512,396
The examiner's full statement of this rejection and response to appellants'
arguments appears in the final rejection (Paper No. 11, mailed November 7, 1997)
and examiner's answer (Paper No. 16, mailed July 24, 1998). Appellants' viewpoints
concerning the examiner's rejection of the appealed claims are found in the brief
(Paper No. 15, filed June 8, 1998) and in the reply brief (Paper No. 17, filed
September 23, 1998).
OPINION
In arriving at our decision in this appeal, we have carefully considered
appellants' specification and claims, the applied Willmann reference, and the
respective viewpoints of appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we have made the determination that the examiner’s rejection of claims
1 through 4, 6 and 8 through 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) will not be sustained. Our
reasons follow.
As noted by appellants, claim 1 on appeal requires a “termination controlling
means” for altering the position of the switching valves of the brake fluid pressure
control apparatus and for specifically driving the pressure-control valve (e.g., 48FL)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007