Appeal No. 2006-2012
Application No. 10/408,875
(col. 1, lines 15-19; col. 2, lines 23-25). Hence, Hartmann’s
corrective action is the type of action which, according to the
appellant’s argument, falls within the meaning of “corrective
action” to those of ordinary skill in the art.
The appellant argues, in reliance upon Hartmann’s column 5,
lines 3-7, that “Hartmann continuously regulates brake pressure,
before and after any μ-split braking condition, and independent
of whether the driver takes corrective action” (brief, page 6).
The portion of Hartmann relied upon by the appellant does not
state that the brake pressure is regulated continuously, before
and after any μ-split braking condition, or independently of
whether the driver takes corrective action. Instead, that
portion states that a signal is generated when a μ-split-braking
situation is recognized. That is what the appellant’s method
does; if and only if a μ-split condition is detected is the
driver’s corrective action and corresponding brake pressure
control response determined (specification, page 4, lines 7-14).
The appellant argues that “determining a driver’s corrective
action is not the same as calculating a maximum permissible rate
of yaw, although both may use steering angle as input” (brief,
page 5). The relevant issue is whether Hartmann determines a
driver’s corrective action, not whether determining a driver’s
corrective action is the same as calculating a maximum
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013