Appeal No. 2002-0245 Page 4
Application No. 09/202,412
Claim 16, the only independent claim on appeal, reads as follows:
A process for controlling the driving behavior of an automotive vehicle
provided with tire sensors that determine the measured forces (Fmess) applied to
the vehicle tires, comprising the steps of:
determining the measured forces applied to each vehicle tires;
determining variable masses applied to the vehicle by converting the
forces applied to each of the tires into masses and applying the variable masses
to a stored mass distribution model, said mass distribution model including basic
mass distribution of the vehicle, actual vehicle mass and mass point of gravity
location, whereby the addition of the variable masses is to variable loading sites
within the mass distribution model; and
determining the variable center of gravity, the yaw rate and the side slip
angle of the vehicle using the mass distribution model and controlling the driving
behavior of the vehicle based on the determined variable center of gravity, the
determined yaw rate and the determined side slip angle.
The obviousness rejection based on Eckert and Sol
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 16 to 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Eckert in view of Sol.
In this rejection, the examiner ascertained (answer, p. 3) that Eckert does not
specifically teach determining a variable center of gravity. The examiner then
determined (answer, p. 4) that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the
time of the invention to modify the system of Eckert "by incorporating the features from
the center of gravity estimator if [sic, of] Sol" because such modification will optimize
active braking effort and traction control action as suggested by Sol.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007