brake A is operated by an electromagnetic means B, which comprises motor 5 and the
gears 7, 8, 9 and thus is an “electronic braking system” as recited in claim 19.
With regard to claim 21, the appellants argue (brief, page 23) that Nakamoto
does not teach first and second actuation members cooperating with a single brake
operating member for applying foundation brake force and a parking brake force,
respectively. The examiner considers the brake pedal disclosed in column 4, line 16,
along with elements 3 to correspond to the recited first actuation member cooperating
with the brake operating member for applying a foundation braking force and the motor
5, gears 7-9 and cables 2 to correspond to the recited second actuation member
cooperating with the brake operating member for applying a parking brake force
(answer, page 7). As disclosed in column 4, lines 10-17, Nakamoto’s braking system
includes a parking brake A having parking brake cables 2 connected to the disc brakes
1 and adapted to be pulled or slacked to apply or release the brakes 1 and a main brake
system 4 having flexible hoses 3 connected to the disc brakes 1. Further, both the
hoses 3 and cables 2 are illustrated in Figure 1 as being connected to identical locations
on the disc brakes 1, thereby conveying to one of ordinary skill in the art that both the
first actuation member (the brake pedal and hoses 3 of the main brake 4) and the
second actuation member (motor 5, gears 7-9 and cables 2 of the parking brake B)
cooperate with the same brake operating member for applying a foundation braking
force and a parking brake force, respectively, as called for in the claim.
The appellants’ only other argument with respect to the rejection of claim 21 as
being anticipated by Nakamoto is that Nakamoto does not teach determining an initial
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007