Appeal No. 2003-0087 6
Application No. 09/512,164
braking force sufficient to stop vehicles of considerable weight such as large school buses
and trucks. Based on the breadth of the claim and the above noted disclosure of Fontaine
regarding the ability of the actuator to generate brake pressures sufficient to stop vehicles
of relatively large weight, we consider the examiner’s position regarding the capability of
Fontaine’s actuator to be well founded, notwithstanding that Fontaine does not expressly
state that it is for use with a railway vehicle braking system.
As to appellants’ argument that Fontaine does not disclose an actuator having a
piston rod that extends outwardly to apply the brakes as required by claim 1, the examiner
considers that it would have been obvious to provide this type of operation in Fontaine in
view of the teachings of Pierce. For the reasons that follow, we consider that it is
unnecessary to consider the teachings of Pierce in evaluating the standing rejection of
claim 1.
It is a well settled principle of patent law that in considering the disclosure of a
reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of each
reference, but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably have been
expected to draw from the disclosure. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ
342, 344 (CCPA 1968). In applying that principle to Fontaine, we observe that Fontaine
describes Figure 6 as “a plan view showing how the brakes may be coupled to the
applying mechanism” (col, 2, lines 57-58). In what appears to be a further reference to
Figure 6, Fontaine states that “[s]haft 31 is connected through clevis 32 to the brake
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007