Appeal No. 2003-0405 Page 2
Application No. 09/635,183
BACKGROUND
The appellants' invention relates to braking systems of electric drive vehicles
(specification, p. 1). A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to
the appellants' brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Cikanek 5,450,324 Sep. 12, 1995
Kidston et al. 5,615,933 Apr. 1, 1997
(Kidston)
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as containing
subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable
one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to
make and/or use the invention.
Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Kidston.1
1 The record does not adequately reflect why the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Kidston made in the first Office action (Paper No. 3, mailed July 20, 2001) was not
maintained in the final rejection while the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Kidston made in the first Office action was maintained in the final rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007