temperature sensor is selected to be smaller than the resistance of any individual
resistive element in the resistor array. Therefore, relatively small changes in the circuit
resistance indicate brake operating temperature changes while a relatively large change
in circuit resistance indicates that a wire loop has been broken. Hanisko does not teach
use of a means through which brake temperature is derived through assessment of
change in travel of a first actuation member during brake application. It follows that
Hanisko provides no teaching or suggestion to add such a feature to Namamoto’s
braking system. Moreover, in any event, the examiner’s application of Hanisko provides
no cure for the deficiency of the combination of Namamoto in view of Neuhaus
discussed above with regard to claim 25.
The rejection of claim 27 as being unpatentable over Namamoto in view of
Neuhaus and Halasy-Wimmer is also not sustained. The examiner’s application of
Halasy-Wimmer does not make up for the deficiency of the combination of Namamoto in
view of Neuhaus discussed above with regard to claim 25, from which claim 27
depends.
Finally, the rejection of claims 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, 28 and 31-34 as being
anticipated by Halasy-Wimmer cannot be sustained. As discussed above, each of the
appellants’ claims requires determination of an initial park brake load level based on at
least one static vehicle characteristic or a control system for such determination. The
examiner points out that Halasy-Wimmer discloses automatic triggering of the parking
brake by a signal of an electric circuit linked to the ignition so that the brake is applied
and locked when the ignition is turned on. While the on/off status of the ignition would
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007