Appeal 2007-1464
Application 10/276,285
ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 9-16 as anticipated by Zittlau
Appellants argue claims 9-16 as a group (Appeal Br. 10-12). We select
claim 9 as a representative claim, and the remaining claims 10-16 stand or fall with
claim 9. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).
Appellants contend that Zittlau fails to “describe any enable-signal that has a
selected value, as provided for in the context of the claim and as defined by the
specification” (Appeal Br. 10). The Examiner found that the “wheel braking
demand signal is equivalent to Appellants’ ‘enable signal’” (Answer 7). We agree
with the Examiner.
Appellants argue that “with the presently claimed subject matter, not only
may a true/false value as an enable-signal be transferred, but selected values
(which according to the specification may have a given and well-defined
resolution)” (Appeal Br. 10). However, the only reference in Appellants’
Specification to the value of the enable-signal is to a logic “1” or “0”
(Specification 12:7-10). The Examiner found that the “wheel braking demand
signal [of Zittlau] is equivalent to Appellants’ ‘enable signal’ and its value is based
on the two desired values for braking force” (Answer 7). More specifically, the
Examiner found that “[w]hen it is above zero (i.e. a selected value) it will be
relayed to actuate the component” (Id.). Appellants have not provided any
argument or evidence to rebut the Examiner’s finding that the wheel braking
demand signal of Zittlau is equivalent to the claimed enabling signal.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013