Appeal No. 2004-0623
Application 09/293,923
It therefore is clear from the description of the operation of the invention that in
the Karagiannis system switch 2 is activated concurrently with the operation of the
ignition switch, and switch 17 is operated subsequent to the disengagement of the
brake. Thus, neither of these switches disengages the parking brake after the
electronic engine immobilizer has been disengaged, and neither meets the limitations of
claim 7. Nor, from our perspective, is there any other switch in the Karagiannis system
that does so. This being the case, the subject matter recited in claim 7 is not
anticipated by Karagiannis, and the rejection cannot be sustained.
The Rejections Under Section 103(a)
In the first of these rejections, the examiner has found the subject matter of
claims 12 and 13 to be obvious4 in view of Bailieux. Independent claim 12 is directed to
the details of the structure of an electric parking brake, which includes a winch, an
electric motor having a rotary shaft for driving the winch, two braking cables attached to
the winch, and a gear driven by the electric motor engaged with the winch along a
diameter “centrally disposed between the opposite sides of the winch to which the
4The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would have suggested to
one of ordinary skill in the art. See, for example, In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881
(CCPA 1981). In establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, it is incumbent upon the examiner to
provide a reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify a prior art reference or
to combine reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. See Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972,
973 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985). To this end, the requisite motivation must stem from some teaching,
suggestion or inference in the prior art as a whole or from the knowledge generally available to one of
ordinary skill in the art and not from the appellant's disclosure. See, for example, Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-
Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1439 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007