Appeal No. 2003-0405 Page 11
Application No. 09/635,183
curve 133 starting with the ABS event and ending just prior to elimination of the
regenerative braking torque);
(2) execute a strategy comprising operating the friction brakes to apply at least some of
the reduction in regenerative braking torque as friction brake torque (see Kidston's
friction braking torque curve 136 starting with the ABS event); and
(3) execute a strategy comprising operating the friction brakes to apply the entire
reduction in regenerative braking torque as friction brake torque (see Kidston's friction
braking torque curve 136 starting with the ABS event and Kidston's teaching that the
friction brakes will make up the difference in total brake torque).
For the reasons set forth above, the appellants have not pointed out how the
claimed subject matter of claims 2 and 3 is novel over the teachings of Kidston.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Kidston is affirmed.
The anticipation rejection based on Cikanek
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Cikanek.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007