Appeal No. 2006-0168 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/459,052
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
We turn first to the examiner‘s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 13 and 15 to 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schenk in view of Suzuki. The
examiner finds that Schenk describes the invention as claimed except that Schenk does
not describe a brake pad wear compensation and specifically the use of a position
sensor for sensing the position of the brake pad relative to the braking surface. The
examiner relies on Suzuki for teaching a brake system that utilizes a position sensor
that provides information to a controller when adjusting the brake pad position due to
excessive pad wear. The examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have
provided the brake system of Schenk et al. with a position sensor for
sensing a worn position of the brake pad relative to the braking surface as
taught by Suzuki, thus allowing for compensation due to pad wear
resulting in improved safety and operation of the vehicle [answer at pages
3 to 4].
Appellants argue that Suzuki does not disclose a control unit that evaluates
whether the position sensed by the position sensor will allow the first brake pad to apply
a braking force to a first side of said braking surface when the energy receptive material
is expanded.
We agree with the examiner that Suzuki describes a brake system utilizing a
position sensor that provides information to a controller when adjusting the brake pad
position due to excessive pad wear. The pad clearance taught by Suzuki is the position
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007