Appeal No. 2002-1556
Application 09/409,583
pressures at the front and rear wheels, respectively, after
standstill is attained and sensed. Once this pressure
differential is set, however, the standstill condition becomes
“due to” the differential braking action to the extent broadly
recited in claims 1 and 18. Thus, the appellants’ position that
the subject matter recited in claims 1 and 18 distinguishes over
Nell is not persuasive.
Accordingly, we sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of independent claims 1 and 18 as being anticipated by
Nell.
As dependent claims 2 through 7, 9, 11, 13 through 17, 19
and 20 stand or fall with claims 1 and 18, we also sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 2 through 5, 7,
17, 19 and 20 as being anticipated by Nell, and the standing 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 6, 9, 11 and 13 through 16 as
being unpatentable over Nell.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 7,
9, 11 and 13 through 20 is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007