said at least one static vehicle characteristic and to determine an initial park brake load
level based on said park demand signal and said static compensation signal. In reading
the claim language on Nakamoto’s braking system, the examiner considers the input
device to be the foot brake sensor interface 27 and finds that the CPU determines an
initial park brake load level (operation force) based on the signal from the interface 27
and the inclination measurement signal. For the following reasons, the examiner’s
rejection is sustained.
The appellants argue that (1) Nakamoto does not determine an initial park brake
load level based on both a park demand signal and a static compensation signal and (2)
Nakamoto does not disclose an electronic braking system. With respect to the first
argument, as illustrated in Figures 2A and 3B, Nakamoto’s CPU determines whether a
plurality of conditions are met, including whether or not the brake pedal is depressed,
and, on the basis of that determination, decides whether or not to produce a brake
command signal in accordance with a sub-flow as illustrated in Figure 4, such sub-flow
determining an operation parking brake force based on the measured inclination angle
of the vehicle (the at least one static vehicle characteristic). Accordingly, Nakamoto’s
CPU does determine an initial park brake load level (operation force) based on the park
demand signal from interface 27 and on the inclination angle signal, thereby meeting
the limitations of the control system set forth in claim 19. We also observe that
Nakamoto’s manual brake application switch 23 also meets the requirements of the
“input device” recited in claim 19. As for the second argument, Nakamoto’s parking
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007