Appeal No. 2004-1704
Application No. 10/225,994
12. A brake pad as recited in Claim 1, wherein
electrical communication lines extend through said
shoulder and from said sensor.
The examiner relies on the following prior art references
as evidence of unpatentability:
Fargier 4,869,350 Sep. 26, 1989
Reede 5,015,990 May 14, 1991
Takanashi et al. 6,193,020 B1 Feb. 27, 2001
(Takanashi) (filed Nov. 16, 1998)
The appealed claims stand rejected as follows:
I. claims 1, 2, 4, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Takanashi (examiner’s answer mailed
Dec. 22, 2003, paper 11, pages 3-4);
II. claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Fargier in view of Reede (id. at
4-5); and
III. claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Takanashi in view of Reede (id. at 5-6).
We affirm rejections I and III but reverse rejection II.1
1 The appellant submits that the appealed claims are
separately patentable as follows: (i) claim 1; (ii) claim 2;
(iii) claims 4 and 5; (iv) claim 8; and (v) claims 12 and 13.
(Appeal brief filed Sep. 12, 2003, paper 10, p. 3.)
Accordingly, we select claims 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12 from these five
claim groupings and confine our discussion to these selected
claims. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2003)(effective Apr. 21, 1995).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007