Appeal Number: 2006-3054
Application Number: 10/672,625
control skid. Phoenix teaches that when the central control signal Pa signal is in
conflict with the Pd signal because of a delay, the conflict is resolved by the Pd
signal overriding the Pa signal. As such, Phoenix does disclose the conflict
resolution scheme recited in claim 1.
However, because the control schemes for the central control unit 10 and the
distributed control unit 16 are the same there is no conflict resolution scheme that
resolved conflicts between conflicting control schemes. As such, Phoenix does not
disclose the conflict resolution scheme recited in claims 2 to 5, 7, and 10 to 20.
Phoenix does disclose the invention of claim 6, which is dependent on claim
1 by disclosing a brake pedal that is a manual override to the central control signal
and the distributed electronic central signal. However, Phoenix does not disclose,
as recited in claim 8, electrical energy for use in actuating the brake component.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The appellants have shown that the examiner erred in holding that
appellants’ specification failed to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to
make a brake system that includes control schemes and a conflict resolution
scheme.
The appellants have failed to establish that the examiner erred in holding
that Phoenix disclosed a conflict resolution scheme that resolves conflicts between
the central control signals and local signals, as recited in claim 1. As appellants
have not argued the separate patentability of claims 7 and therefore this claim
stands or falls with claim 1 from which it depends.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013