brake application, not to a subsequent reapplication following release of the parking
brake.
Claim 20 depends from claim 12. For the reasons cited above with respect to
claims 12 and 13, we also cannot sustain the rejection of claim 20 as being anticipated
by Nakamoto.
The rejection of claim 17, which depends from claim 11 and further recites that
the variable position back stop comprises a cam member, as being anticipated by
Nakamoto also cannot be sustained. In making this rejection the examiner contends
that Nakamoto’s sector gear 9 is a cam member. On page 20 of the brief, the
appellants argue, and we agree, that one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider
the sector gear 9 of Nakamoto to correspond to the appellants’ claimed “cam member.”
The examiner points to a definition of cam on page 6 of the answer as “a multiply
curved wheel mounted on a rotating shaft and used to produce variable or reciprocating
motion in another engaged or contacted portion.” Even accepting the definition
proffered by the examiner, as recognized by the appellants (brief, pages 20-21),
Nakamoto’s sector gear 9 falls far short of meeting this definition. First, the sector gear
is not multiply curved; it appears to have only a single radius of curvature. Second, it is
not mounted on a rotating shaft.
We turn now to the rejection of claim 19 as being anticipated by Nakamoto.
Claim 19 depends from claim 11 and recites that the parking brake system includes an
electronic braking system with an input device for generating a park demand signal and
further calls for the control system to generate a static compensation signal based on
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007