Ex Parte O - Page 3



           Appeal No. 2006-2012                                                                      
           Application No. 10/408,875                                                                
           permissible rate of yaw to the actual rate of yaw, and uses the                           
           calculated deviation to determine wheel-brake slippages and                               
           braking pressures (col. 4, line 60 – col. 5, line 2).                                     
                 The appellant argues that Hartmann does not determine the                           
           driver’s corrective action but, rather, uses steering angle as a                          
           continuous input into the brake regulation system (brief, page 5;                         
           reply brief, page 3).  Hartmann does not disclose that the                                
           steering angle is a continuous input to the brake regulation                              
           system.  What Hartmann discloses is that the maximum permissible                          
           rate of yaw is calculated with the aid of the steering angle                              
           (col. 4, lines 64-66).  Regardless, whether or not Hartmann’s                             
           steering angle is a continuous input, the steering angle is the                           
           driver’s corrective action to the split coefficient condition.                            
           Thus, its determination meets the appellant’s claim 1 requirement                         
           of “determining a driver’s corrective action”.                                            
                 The appellant argues, without providing any support, that                           
           “corrective action”, as that term is used by those skilled in the                         
           art, is limited to response to a split coefficient road surface                           
           and excludes merely driving around a corner or a curve (reply                             
           brief, page 2).  The appellant’s argument is not persuasive even                          
           if it is correct, because Hartmann’s method does not pertain to                           
           merely driving around a corner or a curve but, instead, deals                             
           with correcting for a split coefficient road surface condition                            
                                                 3                                                   



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013