brake A, the brake application command signal is stopped to
de-energize the motor 5 so that the parking brake A is put
into a locked state of brake application.
The appellants argue that the subject matter of claim 11 is not anticipated by
Nakamoto because Nakamoto does not “selectively maintain said initial park brake load
level” as called for in claim 11. In particular, the appellants urge that Nakamoto’s CPU
measures the angle of inclination of the vehicle and then sets the operation force of the
parking brake A required for the inclination measured and then operates motor 5 until
the motor torque “increases toexceed the set force of the parking brake A” (column 8,
li 5-16; emphasis added). Thus, according to the appellants, Nakamoto applies anes 1
parking brake load level that exceeds the determined (or “set”) parking brake load level.
See pages 15-16 of the brief.
While the appellants are correct that Nakamoto discusses operating the motor
until the motor torque increases to exceed the set force of the parking brake, Nakamoto
then goes on to explain that “[a]t the instant when the motor torque reaches the set
force for the parking brake A, the brake application command signal is stopped to de-
energize the motor 5 so that the parking brake A is put into a locked state of brake
application” (column 8, lines 16-22). In light of the entirety of Nakamoto’s disclosure
with regard to the operation of the motor 5, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood that the operation force set by the CPU is the cut-off level at which the
motor 5 is de-energized and, further, would have had sufficient understanding of control
theory to understand that, in practice, this means that the motor is de-energized at the
instant when the measured motor torque meets or exceeds such cut-off level and would
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007