Appeal No. 2006-2012
Application No. 10/408,875
permissible rate of yaw. Like the appellant (specification,
page 4, lines 11-13), Hartmann indicates the driver’s corrective
action by the steering angle (as discussed above).
The appellant argues, in reliance upon Hartmann’s column 1,
lines 24-26 and column 2, lines 25-27, that Hartmann slows the
build-up of yawing moment enough to require relatively light
countersteering at the beginning of the braking operation,
thereby giving the driver time to countersteer, whereas the
appellant’s method takes advantage of the driver’s corrective
action to decrease stopping distance when the driver is
correcting (brief, pages 5-6). Thus, the appellant argues,
Hartmann facilitates countersteering, whereas the appellant’s
method takes advantage of countersteering (brief, page 5). In
the appellant’s method, if the driver does not correct or stops
correcting, brake pressure is controlled to reduce yaw
(specification, page 4, lines 17-19). As in Hartmann’s method
(col. 2, lines 4-9), that yaw reduction gives the driver time to
countersteer. Only if the driver countersteers is the
appellant’s brake pressure allowed to increase such that the
motor vehicle stops more quickly (specification, page 4,
lines 14-17). Hartmann likewise takes the steering angle into
account in determining the pressures applied to the brakes
(col. 4, line 62 – col. 5, line 2). Hence, the argued
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013