Appeal No. 2002-1556
Application 09/409,583
fully met by the reference. Kalman v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 713
F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
As framed by the appellants (see pages 5 through 8 in the
main brief and pages 2 through 7 in the reply brief), the
dispositive issue with respect to the anticipation rejection of
independent claims 1 and 18 is whether Nell meets the limitations
in claim 1, and the corresponding limitations in method claim 18,
relating to the differential braking action. The appellants
contend that
the claimed invention . . . provides for remedying a
potential problem which may result from an EBD braking
action,[2] i.e., the problem of roll-back which may be
experienced by a vehicle with a heavy rear load after
2 The appellants’ specification gives the following
definition of EBD (electronic braking force distribution)
braking:
EBD braking is defined as follows: a differential is
set between the braking pressure on the front wheels
and the rear wheels and thus the braking action is
distributed at least by actuating actuators assigned to
the rear wheels of the vehicle. This distribution of
the braking pressure and thus of the braking action
ensures that the rear axle is not locked before the
front axle. In EBD distribution the braking action is
“locked” in the rear wheels by appropriately activating
the actuators assigned to the rear wheels, i.e., the
pressure remains unchanged during EBD braking and
cannot be increased by the driver. On the other hand,
the braking pressure of the front wheels can be
increased by the driver at any time [pages 4 and 5].
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007