Appeal 2007-1454
Application 11/088,528
1 11/088,282. We note that Appellants are not appealing this rejection. Therefore,
2 we summarily affirm the provisional double patenting rejection.
3 ISSUES
4 Since Appellants have not appealed the provisional double patenting
5 rejection, three issues remain for consideration. First, has the Examiner
6 established that the claims on appeal are based on a Specification that does not
7 comply with the enablement requirement. Secondly, has the Examiner established
8 that the claimed subject matter lacks novelty over the Matsumoto reference and,
9 thirdly, whether additional claimed subject matter is obvious in view of
10 Matsumoto.
11 FINDING OF FACTS
12 Matsumoto discloses a vehicle brake system having at least one movable
13 brake component. Examples of a movable brake component include piston 75 and
14 brake pad 76. Appellants admit that the prior art including Matsumoto can
15 determine a command brake torque signal based on an actual tire/road friction
16 force and the target tire/road friction force. See, for example, Br. 9-10. We agree
17 that Matsumoto discloses control of a brake actuator based in part on the
18 relationship between an actual tire/road friction force and a target tire/road friction
19 force or upon a target rotational velocity. (Br. 15). However, we are further in
20 agreement with Appellants that Matsumoto controls the back brake actuator based
21 on a comparison of the actual hydraulic pressure with a commanded hydraulic
22 pressure. This is contrary to Appellants’ control system which is based on an
23 actual position of a brake component compared to a commanded position of a
24 brake component. We agree with Appellants that nothing in Matsumoto describes
25 or suggests control of a brake component based on its actual and targeted position.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013