Appeal No. 2003-0405 Page 5
Application No. 09/635,183
Be that as it may, we find ourselves in full agreement with the appellants'
position (brief, pp. 7-9; reply brief, pp. 2-3) that (1) both independent claim 2 and
dependent claim 3 are readable on the embodiments of Figures 1-5; and (2) that the
limitation of claim 3 that the processing system executes a strategy comprising
operating the friction brakes to apply the entire reduction in regenerative braking torque
as friction brake torque modifies the second wherein clause of claim 23 not the first
wherein clause of claim 2.4
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 3
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is reversed.
The anticipation rejection based on Kidston
We sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Kidston.
3 Wherein the vehicle includes friction brakes for applying friction brake torque to the wheels and
the processing system executes a strategy comprising operating the friction brakes to apply at least some
of the reduction in regenerative braking torque as friction brake torque.
4 Wherein the processing system executes a strategy comprising reducing, but not completely
eliminating, the torque that is being applied to the drivetrain as regenerative braking torque when a
wheel-condition-initiated triggering event occurs.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007