Appeal No. 2003-0405 Page 13
Application No. 09/635,183
In the examiner's view, the above-quoted limitations of claims 2 and 16 are
readable on Cikanek. Specifically, the examiner (answer, pp. 5, 7 and 8) refers to
(1) Cikanek's Figure 6A; (2) Cikanek's column 11, lines 65-68; (3) Cikanek's Figures 5A
& 5B; and (4) Cikanek's column 13, lines 10-27.
We have reviewed the entire disclosure of Cikanek but fail to find therein any
teaching of 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, and operating friction brakes of the vehicle to apply at least some of the
reduction in regenerative braking torque as friction brake torque as recited in claims 2
and 16.
For the reasons set forth above, all the limitations of claims 2 and 16 are not
disclosed in Cikanek. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 2 and
16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Cikanek is reversed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, is reversed; the decision of the examiner to reject claims 2 and 3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007