Appeal No. 2001-0844 Page 4
Application No. 08/736,330
1998); Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384,
1388, 21 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Zletz, 893
F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Thus,
the examiner's position that while the appellant may be his
own lexicographer that the appellant must specifically state
that all other meanings are excluded is without merit. 1
Therefore, since the appellant has provided a definition of
"partial braking" on page 1, lines 21-24, of the original
specification, and that definition is not repugnant to its
well known usage, we accept the appellant's definition as the
appropriate definition to the phrase "partial braking" as used
in claims 1 and 5.
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 6-9) that Luckevich does
not disclose the subject matter of claims 1 and 5. We agree.
In that regard, Luckevich does not disclose either (1) a
symmetrical reduction of brake pressure being carried out on
both wheels of an axle when the signal proportional to the
lateral acceleration is larger than a first lower threshold
1We note that the examiner has cited no authority in
support of this position.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007