Appeal 2006-2793
Application 10/829,536
presumably through force distribution, and that such force distribution
would satisfy the bypass transmission path limitation of claim 27, we do not
find this argument persuasive. First, such force distribution would not
“bypass” the force transducer 42. Further, that such force distribution occurs
is speculative, as Rinsma gives no hint that this is the case.
In light of the above, we conclude that the Examiner has failed to
establish that Rinsma discloses, either expressly or under principles of
inherency, that Rinsma’s pressure pad 36, 53 and nut/groove connection 39,
39’ cooperate to limit “a maximum component of force acting upon the
force transducer upon generating of the clamping force” as called for in
claim 1. We further conclude that the Examiner has failed to establish that
Rinsma discloses, either expressly or under principles of inherency, that
Rinsma’s pressure pad 36, 53 and nut/groove connection 39, 39’ together
comprise “a force limiting assembly for limiting the force acting upon the
force transducer upon generation of the clamping force” as recited in claim
26. Finally, we conclude that the Examiner has failed to establish that
Rinsma discloses, either expressly or under principles of inherency, that the
arrangement of Rinsma’s screw 24, pressure pad 36, 53, piston 35, and
nut/groove connection 39, 39’ is such that Rinsma’s disc brake assembly has
“a second force transmission path arranged between the actuator and at least
one of the brake shoes, the second force transmission path bypassing the
force sensing element” as recited in claim 27.
Accordingly, Appellant has demonstrated that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claims 1, 26 and 27, as well as claims 2, 3, 7-25, and
28 depending from claims 1, 26, and 27, as anticipated by Rinsma. The
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013