Appeal No. 2000-0950 Page 6
Application No. 08/925,247
On September 3, 2002, the examiner entered and considered this supplemental
reply brief (Paper No. 19).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we find ourselves in full agreement with the position of the appellant as
set forth in the brief, reply brief and the supplemental reply brief that the subject matter
of claim 1 is not anticipated by the patent to Ashrafi and that the subject matter of
claims 2 and 3 is not obvious from the combined teachings of Ashrafi and Sakai.
Accordingly, we will not sustain either the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,742,918 to Ashrafi or the rejection of
dependent claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ashrafi in
view of Sakai.
In our view, the subject matter of claim 1 is not anticipated by Ashrafi since
Ashrafi lacks a brake system control method having an observer to estimate lateral
velocity of the vehicle, wherein the observer contains (a) an open loop nonlinear
dynamic model of the vehicle responsive to the measured vehicle speed and the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007