Ex Parte Schmidt et al - Page 3

            Appeal 2007-0359                                                                                  
            Application 10/485,356                                                                            

        1                                        OPINION                                                      
        2          We reverse the aforementioned rejections and remand the application to the                 
        3   Examiner.  We need to address only the independent claims, i.e., claims 10 and 18.                
        4                                         Claim 10                                                    
        5          Claim 10 requires a step of evacuating a hydraulic reservoir.                              
        6          Baechle discloses “a process of bleeding a slip-controlled dual-circuit brake              
        7   system for automotive vehicles, and a device for implementing the process”                        
        8   (Baechle, col. 1, ll. 8-10).  In that process “bleeding of the wheel brakes is                    
        9   executed in two sequences of operation: in a first sequence of operation, the wheel               
       10   brakes of the front axle and the rear axle are pre-bled by a cyclic actuation of the              
       11   braking pressure generator, and in the second sequence of operation the main                      
       12   bleeding and filling of the front-wheel and rear-wheel brakes is executed by                      
       13   actuating cycles of the braking pressure generator, the pressure modulation valves                
       14   and start of operation of the pump” (Baechle, col. 1, ll. 33-42).                                 
       15          The Examiner does not address, in either the explanation of the rejection                  
       16   (Final Rejection 3-4) or the response to the Appellants’ arguments (Answer 3-4),                  
       17   the requirement in the Appellants’ claim 10 of a step of evacuating a hydraulic                   
       18   reservoir.  The Examiner, therefore, has not established a prima facie case of                    
       19   anticipation or obviousness of the invention claimed in claim 10 or its dependent                 
       20   claims 11, 12, 16, and 17.                                                                        
       21                                         Claim 18                                                    
       22          Claim 18 requires a master cylinder including a connection that is associated              
       23   with a wheel brake cylinder and discharges approximately at a tangent into a                      
       24   cylinder bore of the master cylinder.                                                             
       25          The Examiner does not rely upon Baechle for a disclosure of the Appellants’                
       26   master cylinder.  Consequently, the Examiner has not established a prima facie                    

                                                      3                                                       


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013