Ex Parte Svendenius et al - Page 7

              Appeal 2007-1454                                                                                         
              Application 11/088,528                                                                                   

         1    vehicle as well as during the life span of the braking components in the vehicle.                        
         2    Appellants agree that these components change slowly over the lifetime of the                            
         3    vehicle and that this slow change and wear is not a substantial problem in                               
         4    Appellants’ brake system.  Appellants admit that some experimentation is                                 
         5    necessary to fit the claimed subject matter on a given vehicle.  But such                                
         6    experimentation does not appear to be undue and is well within the scope of those                        
         7    skilled in this art.  Accordingly, it is our conclusion of law that the Examiner has                     
         8    not established that undue experimentation would be necessary to enable one of                           
         9    ordinary skill to make and use the invention.                                                            
        10          As noted above, we have determined that Matsumoto does not anticipate                              
        11    the claimed subject matter of the claims subject to the anticipation rejection under                     
        12     102.  It was our finding that Matsumoto does not determine the position of a                           
        13    brake system component and does not compare a position of the brake system                               
        14    component to a targeted position.  With respect to the obviousness rejection, while                      
        15    we agree with the Examiner that self-energizing brakes and electromechanical                             
        16    brakes are known in the art, as admitted by Appellants, the lack of control based on                     
        17    brake component position is still absent from the cited and applied prior art                            
        18    notwithstanding this admission of Appellants.  Therefore, the obviousness rejection                      
        19    on appeal cannot be sustained.                                                                           


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

Last modified: September 9, 2013