Appeal No. 2000-0916 Page 7
Application No. 08/907,965
setting a target value of a vehicular motion; d) right
and left braking means, disposed on at least one of front
tire wheels or rear tire wheels; e) fourth means for
calculating a first target braking force required to
achieve the target value of the vehicular action in the
vehicle which is an object to be controlled; f) fifth
means for detecting a revolution speed of at least one of
vehicular tire wheels on which said left and right
braking means is disposed and for producing a third
signal indicative of the revolution speed; g) sixth means
for calculating a second target braking force of the
braking means required for a slip on the tire wheel
related to the fifth means to fall in a predetermined
condition; and h) seventh means for independently
controlling the braking force derived from said left and
right braking means for each tire wheel so as to become
coincident with either less [sic] one of the first target
braking force or second target braking force as a final
target braking force.
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b), it must be shown that each element of the claim is
found, either expressly described or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984). In
addition, in order to meet a "means-plus-function" limitation
as used in claim 1, the prior art must (1) perform the
identical function recited in the means limitation and (2)
perform that function using the structure disclosed in the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007