Appeal No. 2004-0623
Application 09/293,923
The appellant’s invention is directed to an electric parking brake for a vehicle. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claims 7 and
12, which appear in the appendix to the appellant's Brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Denman et al. (Denman) 5,100,106 Mar. 31, 1992
Schmitz et al. (Schmitz) 6,172,430 B1 Jan. 9, 2001
(filed Dec. 16, 1998)
Karagiannis (German Patent)1 31 13 362 A1 Oct. 7, 1982
Bailieux (EPO Application)1 19970122 A1 Jan. 22, 1997
Claims 7 and 8 stand 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 reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the
application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.2
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Karagiannis.
Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Bailieux.
1Our understanding of these foreign language documents was obtained from PTO translations,
copies of which are enclosed.
2A rejection of claims 7, 8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, on the basis of lack of
enablement, was withdrawn on page 4 of the Answer.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007