certainly appear to be a “static vehicle characteristic” as referred to in the appellants’
claims, the examiner has not pointed to any step of or control system for determining
the initial parking brake load level based on any static vehicle characteristic. Rather,
Halasy-Wimmer appears to disclose that the parking brake operation is performed by
using an electrically controlled and adjustable brake force booster and that the parking
brake is triggered and adjusted by the driver by a parking brake switch (see column 7,
first full paragraph). Inasmuch as the examiner has not pointed out, nor is it apparent,
where such step of or control system for determining is disclosed in Halasy-Wimmer,
the examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case that the subject matter of the
appellants’ claims is anticipated2 by Halasy-Wimmer.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, rejection (1) is sustained as to claims 11, 14, 15, 19 and 21 and
reversed as to claims 12, 13, 17, 20, 22-24, 28 and 29, rejections (2), (3), (5) and (6)
are reversed and rejections (4) and (7) are sustained. The decision of the examiner is
AFFIRMED-IN-PART.
2 To anticipate, every element and limitation of the claimed invention must be found in a single prior art
reference, arranged as in the claim. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383, 58
USPQ2d 1286, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d
1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007