Appeal 2007-1367
Application 10/703,596
can reasonably understand the meaning attributed to the criticized claim
language directed to the priorities given to the vibration compensator.
We now turn to the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of all the appealed
claims over Sugai. Sugai, like Appellants, discloses an apparatus or system
for diagnosing faults, such as unwanted vibrations, in the dynamic system of
a vehicle which includes vibrations in the tire, suspension system, vehicle
body, etc. Also, it is clear that the apparatus of Sugai gives priority to
reducing “unpleasant vibration felt by the driver or a variation in vehicle
behavior by continuously controlling a hydraulic braking pressure in a
smooth manner” (col. 5, ll. 4-7). The reference describes that the anti-lock
brake controller is responsive to the detection of wheel speed and vibration
of the wheel (see col. 23, ll. 4 et seq.). The reference system also includes a
memory section 40 for stored reference values for various components of the
vehicle (col. 7, ll. 21 et seq.). The reference further explains that the
“dynamic system diagnostic apparatus can also be applied to the diagnosis of
the state of components around a tire (e.g., the damping force of a damper
used in the suspension system, the eccentric state of a tire, the state of a
wheel, the wear of the tire, and foreign objects cut into the tire” (col. 21, ll.
29-34). As for Appellants’ tire, suspension, and vehicle body models of the
vibration calculator, the Examiner properly points to the reference at col. 27,
ll. 56 et seq. for the tire model; col. 29, ll. 14-20 for the suspension model;
and col. 41, penultimate para. for the vehicle body model.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013