Ex Parte Svendenius et al - Page 3

           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.      


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013