Appeal No. 2003-0084
Application No. 09/233,583
We also share appellants view that the examiner's reliance
on Sawada fails to remedy the deficiencies of Pueschel and that
the examiner's attempt to use the teachings of Sawada with those
of Pueschel in the particular manner urged in the final rejection
and answer represents a classic case of hindsight reconstruction
wherein the examiner has clearly picked and chosen among isolated
and disparate disclosures in the prior art in an attempt to
deprecate appellants' claimed subject matter. Moreover, even if
the Pueschel and Sawada patents were to be combined as proposed
by the examiner, it does not appear that appellants' claimed
braking system would be the result, since neither of the applied
patents address a vacuum booster with a transition point as
claimed by appellants and a pressure increasing device including
a second hydraulic pressure source operable to initiate a
pressure increasing operation when the brake operating force has
increased to the transition point.
In light of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner to
reject claims 1 through 4, 9 through 13 and 17 through 31 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pueschel in view of
Sawada will not be sustained.
66
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007