Appeal No. 2006-0373 Παγε 5
Application No. 10/181,625
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims and to the respective positions articulated by the
appellants and the examiner. For the reasons which follow, we cannot sustain the
examiner's rejection.
The basis of the examiner's rejection is that claims 24-27, which recite features
directed specifically to the braking device of Figures 3a-3c, depend, directly or indirectly,
from claims 13 and 14, which recite the rotor and stator of the steering wheel actuator 9,
and thus also include the rotor and stator. The examiner's rejection appears to be
grounded on a misunderstanding of the appellants' invention. In particular, the
examiner seems to believe that appellants' specification fails to disclose an embodiment
of the steer-by-wire braking system which includes both the rotor and stator and the
braking device actuating device comprising a lifting magnet (the braking device of
Figures 3a-3c).
The examiner's understanding of appellants' disclosed invention is incorrect. As
explained above, the steering wheel actuator 9, which is part of appellants' steer-by-wire
system, regardless of which embodiment of braking device 10 is used therein,
comprises a rotor and a stator. In accordance with appellants' disclosure (specification,
page 7, for example), the braking device 10 may be integrated with the steering wheel
actuator 9, as in Figures 4a-4c, or comprise a separate actuating device, the lifting
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007