Appeal No. 1999-1058 Page 9
Application No. 08/832,960
braking actuation in situation which requires traction control
as is taught by Steiner” (Paper No. 22, page 2).
We cannot support the examiner’s position. In order to
establish the prima facie obviousness of a claimed invention,
all the claim limitations must be taught or suggested by the
prior art. In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985, 180 USPQ 580, 583
(CCPA 1974). Like appellants (brief, pages 15-17), we are
unable to find, and the examiner has not specifically
identified, where in the references the steps recited in claim
1 are found.
We point out that Yoshino discloses an ABS control
device, not a method for carrying out an automatic braking
operation, in which the wheels located on the same axle are
controlled either independently by the ABS or together
depending on the duration of brake pressure control signals to
the right and left wheels. Steiner does teach a method for
carrying out an automatic braking operation, but it uses the
speed with which the driver operates the brake pedal as the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007