Appeal Number: 2006-3054
Application Number: 10/672,625
The Appellants contend that a person or ordinary skill in the art would have
been enabled by reading the specification to make and use the claimed control
scheme and conflict scheme.
The examiner has rejected claims 1 to 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Phoenix because the examiner finds that Phoenix discloses each and
every element of claims 1 to 20.
The Appellants contend that Phoenix does not disclose a conflict resolution
scheme as recited in claims 1 and 5. Appellants also contend that Phoenix does not
disclose a manual input for overriding the central control signals and the local
central control signals, as recited in claim 6, or electrical energy for use in
actuating a brake component as recited in claim 8.
ISSUES
The first issue is whether the Appellants have shown that the examiner erred
in holding that the specification would not have enabled a person of ordinary skill
in the art to make and use a control scheme and a conflict resolution scheme.
The second issue is whether the Appellants have shown that the examiner
erred in finding that Phoenix discloses a conflict resolution scheme.
The third issue is whether the Appellant has shown that the examiner erred
in finding that Phoenix discloses a manual input for overriding the central control
signals and local control signals.
The fifth issue is whether the Appellants have shown that the examiner erred
in finding that Phoenix discloses electrical energy for use in actuating the brake
component.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013