Appeal No. 2003-0405 Page 6
Application No. 09/635,183
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is
found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.
Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed.
Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). The inquiry as to whether a reference
anticipates a claim must focus on what subject matter is encompassed by the claim and
what subject matter is described by the reference. As set forth by the court in Kalman
v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984), it is only necessary for the claims to "'read on' something
disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the reference, or
'fully met' by it."
Kidston's invention relates to electric vehicles which use regenerative braking
and which further have anti-lock friction brake systems. Such vehicles may be provided
with a brake system capable of blending regenerative and friction braking at the front
wheels so as to conserve battery charge. Such vehicles may be provided, either in
addition or alternatively, with coastdown regenerative braking to simulate the "feel" of
an internal combustion engine driven vehicle when coasting with no accelerator pedal
depression. In one embodiment of Kidston's invention, the regenerative braking is
blended with the friction braking when anti-lock braking is not activated so that battery
charge is conserved. When the anti-lock braking is activated, however, the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007