Appeal No. 1999-1056
Application No. 08/525,844
with appellants’ argument (reply brief, page 4) that Yamamoto
fails to teach or suggest a means for controlling the
actuating steering torque dependent on a difference between
the detected lateral dynamic condition and a reference lateral
dynamic condition computed from a change rate of the detected
lateral dynamic condition. Rather, Yamamoto teaches a means
for controlling the actuating steering torque dependent on a
difference between the detected lateral dynamic condition and
a reference lateral dynamic condition which is predicted from
a steering input to the steering torque input means (col. 3,
lines 24-30). Because the additionally cited Ito reference
does nothing to remedy this deficiency, we have concluded that
the combined teachings of the applied prior art fail to teach
or suggest the invention defined in claim 15.
Since all the limitations of claim 15 are not found in
the applied prior art or obvious therefrom, it follows that
the examiner's rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
will not be sustained.
Claims 16 and 17 are dependent on claim 15 and,
therefore, contain all of the limitations of that claim.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007