Appeal 2007-1367
Application 10/703,596
Accordingly, based on the Examiner’s factual findings with respect to
the Sugai disclosure, we find that the Examiner has established that the
Sugai apparatus is fully capable of performing the claimed functions for
reducing uncomfortable vibrations imparted to the driver of a vehicle by
compensating for vibrations from the tire, suspension, and vehicle body
resulting from input from the driver, including manipulating the accelerator,
steering column, and brake.
Appellants maintain that, as a result of the claimed apparatus which
compensates for driver input in order to reduce calculated vibrations, “the
brake can be controlled in response to the compensated input” (Br. 6, last
sentence). Appellants then state that “[o]n the other hand, Sugai teaches an
anti-lock brake controller and a braking pressure controller [wherein] an
ABS system controls an anti-lock braking operation on the basis of
variations in the resonance characteristics of a braking pressure” (Br. 7, first
para.). However, we do not understand how this acknowledged feature of
Sugai’s apparatus does not meet Appellants’ function of controlling the
brake in response to the compensated input. Manifestly, the apparatus of
Sugai compensates for any vibrations emanating from the braking system in
response to the input of the driver, which includes acceleration, steering, and
braking.
We also do not understand Appellants’ argument that “Sugai does not
reveal the calculation of tire vibration, under-spring vibration, and on-spring
vibration” (Br. 7, last sentence). The portions of Sugai cited by the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013