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