Ex Parte McCann et al - Page 2





                                              BACKGROUND                                                     
                   The appellants’ invention relates to a parking brake system for a vehicle having          
            either a conventional or electronically controlled braking system.  Appellants’ system           
            includes a control system having a brake load level determining means to determine the           
            brake load level at which the brake is to be parked and a control means for controlling          
            actuation of a latching mechanism, or a combination of several latching mechanisms, to           
            selectively maintain that brake load level during a parking phase.  A copy of the claims         
            under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellants’ brief.                              

                                           The Applied Prior Art                                             
            Nakamoto et al. (Nakamoto)   4,561,527  Dec. 31, 1985                                            
            Neuhaus et al. (Neuhaus)    5,255,962  Oct. 26, 1993                                             
            H anisko                                   5,637,794          Jun. 10, 1997                    
            Halasy-Wimmer et al. (Halasy-Wimmer)         DE 196 20 344      Aug. 14, 19971                   
                   (German patent application publication)                                                   

                                              The Rejections                                                 
            (1)    Claims 11-15, 17, 19-24, 28 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as             
            being anticipated by Nakamoto.                                                                   
            (2)    Claims 16, 25 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                        
            unpatentable over Nakamoto in view of Neuhaus.                                                   
            (3)    Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over                 
            Nakamoto in view of Neuhaus and Hanisko.                                                         

                                                                                                             
            1 We derive our understanding of this reference from the English-language translation provided by the
            examiner.                                                                                        






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007