park brake load based on static vehicle conditions and maintaining the load during an
initial parking phase (brief, page 23). This argument is not well founded for the reasons
cited above with respect to the rejection of claim 11. Accordingly, the rejection of claim
21 as being anticipated by Nakamoto is sustained.
The rejection of claims 16, 25 and 30 as being unpatentable over Nakamoto in
view of Neuhaus is not sustained. Neither Nakamoto nor Neuhaus teaches or suggests
determining said initial park brake load level based on brake temperature, as called for
in these claims. Nakamoto discloses using a plurality of vehicle conditions, including a
vehicle load condition, to determine whether or not parking brake application is
appropriate and, if appropriate, entering a sub-flow to determine the braking force as a
function of the measured angle of inclination. Neuhaus discloses an electronic braking
system that uses vehicle load and brake temperature to modulate the main brake force
to be applied but provides no teaching or suggestion with regard to parking brake force.
The rejection of claim 26, which depends from claim 25, as being unpatentable
over Nakamoto in view of Neuhaus and Hanisko is also not sustained. The examiner’s
statement of the teachings of Hanisko on page 11 of the answer does not appear to be
accurate. Specifically, Hanisko teaches placing a plurality of resistive sensors within a
brake lining to monitor both changes in brake temperature and degree of wear of the
lining. In accordance with Hanisko’s disclosed method, a resistive temperature sensor
is disposed within the brake lining and connected in series with external resistors
connected to serially-connected electrical wire loops disposed within the brake lining at
various selected wear heights. The maximum resistive change of the resistive
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007