Appeal No. 2003-0400 Page 3
Application No. 09/272,772
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The appellant’s invention is directed to a slip-controlled vehicle brake system
with a piston pump that acts upon first and second pressure chambers, one of which is
connected to a brake cylinder of a front brake of the vehicle and the other of which is
connected to a brake cylinder of a rear wheel of the vehicle. It is the examiner’s view
that all of the subject matter recited in independent claim 1 is disclosed by Schmidt,
except for the specific structure of the piston pump. The examiner takes the position
that it would have been obvious to modify the Schmidt system by replacing the two
pumps described and shown in the system with a single pump of the type disclosed by
Volz because “it would have reduced the cost of the brake system through reduction of
parts” and “would have reduced pressure pulsations” (Answer, page 4). The appellant
argues that no suggestion is provided by either reference to modify the Schmidt system
in the manner proposed by the examiner.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See, for example, In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). In establishing a prima facie case of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007