Appeal No. 2002-0245 Page 5
Application No. 09/202,412
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 8 and 10) that the claimed step of "determining
the measured forces applied to each vehicle tires" is neither taught or suggested by
either Eckert or Sol. In addition, the appellants assert (brief, pp. 9-10; reply brief, pp. 2-
3) that there is no motivation to combine Eckert and Sol to arrive at the subject matter
of claim 16. We agree.
The examiner has not pointed out where the step of "determining the measured
forces applied to each vehicle tires" is met by Eckert or Eckert as modified with a
center of gravity estimator as taught by Sol. Our review of Eckert does not reveal any
teaching or suggestion that Eckert discloses determining the measured forces applied
to each vehicle tire. As such, even if it would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Eckert with a center
of gravity estimator as taught by Sol, such would not have arrived at the claimed subject
matter. Moreover, it is not apparent that the teachings of Eckert as modified by Sol as
set forth in the rejection would have met the step of 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 as set forth in
claim 16.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007