Appeal No. 2003-0084
Application No. 09/233,583
rejections, and to appellants' brief (Paper No. 24, filed
November 6, 2001) and reply brief (Paper No. 26, filed April 1,
2002) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants' specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
Having reviewed and evaluated the Pueschel and Sawada
patents, we share appellants' assessment of the examiner's
rejection of claims 1 through 4, 9 through 13 and 17 through 31
and agree with appellants that neither Pueschel nor Sawada
discloses, teaches or suggests a vacuum booster having a
transition point as claimed, and thus a braking system like that
defined in the claims before us on appeal. In that regard, we
share appellants' views as expressed on pages 5 through 11 of the
brief and in the reply brief, which positions we adopt as our
own.
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007