have considered the parking brake A to then be locked so as to maintain the set
operation force, within the accuracy permitted by the control system.
In light of the above, we find no error in the examiner’s determination that
Nakamoto meets the limitations in the last paragraph of claim 11 argued by the
appellants to be lacking. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 11, as well as claims 14 and
15, which the appellants have grouped with claim 11, as being anticipated by Nakamoto
is sustained.
We shall also sustain the rejection of dependent claim 18 as being unpatentable
over Nakamoto in view of Halasy-Wimmer since the appellants have not challenged
such with any reasonable specificity (see In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2USPQ2d
1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
The rejection of claims 12, 13, 22-24, 28 and 29 as being anticipated by
Nakamoto is not sustained. Nakamoto provides no disclosure of an adjustment of the
park brake load level (set operation force) in response to a change in the inclination
angle of the vehicle (the static vehicle characteristic upon which the set operation force
is set) subsequent to the initial park brake load level (set force) being determined, as
called for in claims 12, 13, 22-24, 28 and 29. The examiner’s position that this limitation
is met by Nakamoto by a subsequent reapplication of the parking brake (answer, pages
5 and 16-17) does not reflect a fair and reasonable reading of the claim language,
especially in light of the appellants’ specification.
While it is true that the claims in a patent application are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during prosecution
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007