Appeal 2006-2825
Application 10/691,916
Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Toomey in view of Kessler.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, has apparently been
withdrawn by the Examiner in view of Appellants’ amendment filed
December 12, 2005, which was entered.
The Examiner provides reasoning in support of the rejection in the
Final Rejection (mailed June 16, 2005) and Answer (mailed March 23,
2006). Appellants present opposing arguments in the Brief (filed February
16, 2006) and Reply Brief (filed May 23, 2006).
THE ISSUES
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in finding that Toomey’s
first and second brake cylinders are connected to a brake conduit via shuttle
valve 22 (Br. 5). According to Appellants, neither the leg 27 (Final
Rejection 4; Answer 3) of Toomey’s Tee valve 22 nor the threaded
connection 28 (Answer 3) can reasonably be considered a brake conduit
because both are part of the Tee valve 22, not a brake line or conduit
attached to Tee valve 22 (Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 5). Accordingly, the first issue
before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Toomey’s first and
second brake master cylinders are connected to a single brake conduit.
Appellants also contend that the combined teachings of Toomey and
Kessler do not teach or suggest “an emergency stop device being provided
which responds to the omission of the electric current, the emergency stop
device supplying a braking signal to the electric magnet for the actuation of
the second hydraulic braking cylinder in case of omission of the current” as
called for in claim 1 (Reply Br. 6-8). Specifically, according to Appellants,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013