Appeal 2007-1557
Application 10/943,536
Appellant argues that the combination of Corio and Fangio does not teach
each limitation of claims 3-5. With respect to claim 3, Appellant argues that
Fangio discloses a single capacitor from which power is derived to energize the
actuator into a fail safe condition and Corio does not disclose a back-up power
system. With respect to claim 4, Appellant contends that Corio does not disclose a
back-up power system and Fangio does not disclose a first and second bank of
capacitors arranged to separately support electromechanical brake actuators. With
respect to claim 5, Appellant argues that “None of Corio, Fangio or their
combination teach or reasonably suggest using first and second banks of capacitors
where each bank receives electrical energy to be stored from independent sources.”
(Br. 11-12).
The Examiner responds that "Fangio teaches at a minimum one capacitor for
each electromechanical actuator. One of skill in the art is well aware that a group
of smaller capacitors (referred to as banks) can be used instead of one large
capacitor." (Answer 6). We agree with the Examiner, and thus find no error in his
obviousness determination of claim 3. Further, although not argued by the
Examiner, one of skill in the art also would be capable of combining the teaching
of Fangio (one capacitor for one actuator) with the multiple actuators of Corio to
form a combination with multiple actuators, each with its own capacitor, or banks
of capacitors, using conventional methods and yielding only predictable results.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide
DC supply voltage to electromechanical brake actuators from different banks of
capacitors, as required by claim 4. Also, Since Corio teaches powering different
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013