Appeal No. 2002-0236
Application No. 08/911,494
pedal (1) even if the servo action of the Master Vac (3)
disappears.
Since we have determined that the teachings and suggestions
found in Katayama and Minagawa would have made the subject matter
as a whole of independent claims 1 and 7 on appeal obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellants'
invention, we will sustain the examiner's rejection of those
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).1
With regard to dependent claims 6 and 8, we note that on page
3 of the brief (Paper No. 19) appellants have grouped claim 6
with claim 1 (Group I) and claim 8 with claim 7 (Group II).
1In our consideration of independent claim 7 on appeal, we
note that the "detection of a safety condition" recited in this
claim is not necessarily associated with a braking safety
condition as in claim 1, and that if a motor vehicle having a
fuel injection system like that described as prior art on page 1,
lines 15-25, of appellants' specification also included a
conventional anti-lock braking system (ABS), then it appears that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007