Appeal No. 2006-0168 Παγε 4
Application No. 10/459,052
of the brake pad relative to the braking surface. The controller evaluates the
effectiveness of the brake from a first position, and moves the brake to a second
position if necessary to effect proper brake actuation. However, we agree with the
appellants that Suzuki does not describe a control unit that instructs a drive unit to move
an energy receptive material to a second position if it is sensed that the brake pad will
not apply a braking force when the energy receptive material is expanded. Suzuki does
not describe anything about evaluating whether the braking force to a brake surface will
allow the brake pad to apply a braking force when an energy receptive material is
expanded.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the rejection as it is directed to
claim 1 and claims 2 and 4 dependent thereon.
Claim 8 recites selectively driving a drive unit to move the position of a brake pad
if it is sensed that the brake pad will not apply a brake force to the braking surface when
the energy receptive material is expanded. As such, claim 8 requires determining if the
brake force will apply a braking force to the brake surface when the energy receptive
material is expanded. As Suzuki does not describe determining whether a brake pad
will apply a braking force when the energy receptive material is expanded, we will not
sustain this rejection as it is directed to claim 8. We will also not sustain the rejection as
it is directed to claims 9, 13 and 15 as these claims are dependent on claim 8.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007