Appeal No. 1999-1058 Page 4
Application No. 08/832,960
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants’ specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we conclude that
the rejection cannot be sustained.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Claim 1, the only independent claim, recites a method for
carrying out an automatic braking operation for a motor-
vehicle brake system with a manually operable brake-actuating
device, the position of which determines the brake pressure
during non-automatic normal braking, a control for the
automatic braking operation and an ABS which detects when a
lock-up limit of a wheel is reached, thereupon controls the
brake pressure for the wheel and triggers the control for the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007