Appeal No. 2002-0236
Application No. 08/911,494
Since we have sustained the examiner's rejection with respect to
both independent claims 1 and 7, it follows that claim 6 will
fall with claim 1 and claim 8 will fall with claim 7. Thus, the
examiner's rejection of claims 6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on the collective teachings of Katayama and Minagawa will
also be sustained.
As for the examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2 and 3
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combined
teachings of Katayama, Minagawa and Yoshino, we are in agreement
with the examiner's position as set forth on pages 5, 6 and 8 of
the answer. Appellants' continued insistence that Katayama does
not generate a "safety signal" as set forth in claim 1 is equally
unavailing here. As for the assertion that there is no
suggestion to combine Yoshino with Katayama and Minagawa, we
share the examiner's view that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time appellants' invention
was made to use an ABS braking system like that in Yoshino in the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007