Appeal 2007-0782
Application 10/683,453
1 as lateral stability, requires that the wheels keep rolling.
2 (Hunter, col. 4, ll. 1-10).
3
4 24. As shown in figure 1 of Hunter, means 10 controls an
5 alternative one of a brake control system and a vehicle prime
6 mover, whereby wheeled acceleration of an associated
7 wheeled vehicle may be controlled. (Hunter, col. 4, ll. 35-
8 38).
9 25. Hunter further provides means 12, responsive to means 11
10 for determining the variation of the coefficient of road
11 friction from a maximum value. Control means 10 coupled
12 to the output 11 for changing the applied torque on a road
13 vehicle under control, for controlling the slip thereof such as
14 to improve the value of the associated coefficient of road
15 friction. (Hunter, col. 4, ll. 51-60).
16
17
18 PRINCIPLES OF LAW
19 On appeal, Appellants bear the burden of showing that the Examiner
20 has not established a legally sufficient basis for combining the teachings of
21 Lencoski with those of Waechter. Appellants may sustain this burden by
22 showing that, where the Examiner relies on a combination of disclosures, the
23 Examiner failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that one having
24 ordinary skill in the art would have done what Appellants did. United States
25 v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 51-52, 148 USPQ 479, 483-84 (1966); In re Kahn,
26 441 F.3d 977, 987-88, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006); DyStar
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013