Appeal No. 2002-1556
Application 09/409,583
achieving standstill on an incline by means of an EBD
braking action. Because of the EBD braking action, the
brake pressure at the rear wheels cannot be increased
further during a roll-back, and the driver is helpless
in the face of vehicle roll-back. This problem is
addressed by the present invention, as recited [in]
claims 1 and 18, by a first arrangement that determines
whether the vehicle is at a standstill due to the EBD
braking action in which the differential between the
first braking pressure and the second braking pressure
has been set, and a second arrangement determining
whether the vehicle is rolling back from the
standstill, and increasing the first braking pressure
in the first wheel brake of the at least one rear wheel
to inhibit the roll-back of the vehicle if the roll-
back is detected. In other words, the EBD braking is
deactivated in case of a roll-back occurring after a
detected standstill which is due to the EBD braking
action.
Applicants respectfully submit that since the Nell
et al. reference clearly fails to teach an EBD braking
action, it is impossible for the Nell et al. reference
to teach the claimed limitations of claims 1 and 18
[main brief, page 7].
The appellants further explain their position with the
following arguments:
in the system described in the Nell et al. reference,
the pressure differential is achieved in the stationary
braking operation automatically and independently of
the driver, as a function of the detected standstill,
after the standstill has been detected.
In contrast to the explicit teachings of the Nell
et al. reference, the claimed pressure differential
between “the first braking pressure and the second
braking pressure” in claims 1 and 18 is intrinsically
achieved by the driver’s braking by the time the
standstill condition is achieved, i.e., prior to the
detection of the standstill condition [main brief, page
6];
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007