Appeal No. 2006-2414
Application No. 10/668,514
The existence of the so-called plus signal at column 8 of Ivey is taught to indicate
that when the torque is higher than a given amount, this condition causes a
controller to operate to engage a brake in response to this plus error signal. Thus,
the operation of the braking action occurs in the context of what amounts to an
error signal, thus further enhancing the safety value of protection of the
transmission/engine and overall drive train to the extent noted earlier.
We disagree with appellants’ urgings at pages 5 and 6 of the reply brief that
the nature of the operation of Ivey does not suggest actuating a brake to provide a
warning. The examiner’s reliance upon the teachings at column 8 in our view
clearly would have suggested the opposite to the artisan.
Other than appellants’ response as to claims 1 and 15, claim 5 and claim 8,
no arguments are presented to us with respect to any other claim on appeal among
claims 1 through 10 and 15 rejected in this first series of rejections. In fact, there
are no arguments at all presented in the separately stated rejection of claim 10 in
view of Sasaki and Sterler, further in view of Steinel.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007