Appeal 2007-0782
Application 10/683,453
1 find that if we replaced the lateral acceleration detection of Takao with
2 detection of the coefficient of friction, as in the ABS system of Hunter, the
3 result would be a towed vehicle that was braked, but not based on a rollover
4 danger being presented. In addition, because Hunter is directed to an ABS
5 system, and does not detect coefficient of friction upon being presented with
6 a rollover condition, we find that an artisan would not have been taught to
7 detect the coefficient of friction between the road and the vehicle train upon
8 being presented with a rollover condition. Thus, we find that an artisan
9 would not have been motivated to provide Takao with the detection of
10 coefficient of friction in addition to the detection of lateral acceleration
11 above a prescribed amount. Accordingly, we find that since Takao brakes
12 the towed vehicle in response to detection of a rollover condition, and
13 Hunter is simply directed to an ABS system, we find that an artisan would
14 not have arrived at the claimed invention other than through impermissible
15 hindsight.
16 In addition, we note that although the components recited in the
17 claims are known in the art, the combination of elements does not yield a
18 predictable result, because there is no suggestion in the art for determining a
19 coefficient when a rollover condition is detected. Nor do we find any
20 evidence that the invention encompassed by the claims was an obvious
21 solution to the known problem of braking tractor trailers.
22 On the record before us, it follows that the Examiner erred in rejecting
23 claim 1 under § 103(a). Since claims 2-5 and 7-16 are narrower than claim
24 1, it also follows that those claims were not properly rejected under § 103(a)
25 as being unpatentable over Takao in view of Hunter.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013