Ex parte ATOCHE-JUAREZ et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 19, 1998

07827680 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 19, 1998)

Application for patent filed January 29, 1992. 1
-1-
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCE
_____________
Ex parte CARLOS ATOCHE-JUAREZ, PETER DOMINKE,
WERNER WEBER and EDGAR BERNARDI
____________
Appeal No. 94-2054
Application 07/827,6801
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before KRASS, FLEMING and CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent
Judges.
CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 94-2054
Application 07/827,680
-2-
This is an appeal from the final rejection of Claims
2-7, which constitute all the claims remaining in the
application.
Claim 4 reads as follows:
4. Wheel slippage control system comprising
wheel speed sensor means for producing a wheel speed
signal during preset computing cycles, each computing cycle
being divided into subcycles of uniform duration, said wheel
speed signal having null times,
means assigning a time base value to each null time,
a first register in which the last three time base
values including a third last, second last, and last time base
value are stored,
means for determining a wheel speed value from the
third last time base value and the last time base value at the
beginning of each subcycle,
a second register in which the wheel speed value is
stored,
means for producing brake pressure control signals
during a computing cycle using the last wheel speed value
stored in the previous computing cycle, and
means for controlling brake pressure using said
brake pressure control signals.
The Examiner’s Answer cites no prior art.
Appeal No. 94-2054
Application 07/827,680
-3-
OPINION
Claims 2-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, “as failing to provide an adequate written
description and failing to teach how to make and/or use the
invention.” Examiner’s Answer at 7. We understand this to be
a rejection for lack of an enabling disclosure.
The examiner states that “[t]he specification is
devoid of any description pertaining to the manner in which
the valves are modulated to implement anti-lock control.”
Examiner’s Answer at 7. However, because the claims do not
specify the manner in which the valves are modulated to
implement anti-lock control, no enablement of that is
necessary.
The examiner further states that “it is unclear as
to how the ‘brake pressure control signals’ are utilized in
modulating the valves in any new manner.” Examiner’s Answer
at 7-8. During prosecution Appellants submitted to the
examiner a publication and patents to demonstrate that those
skilled in the art are able to control brake pressure using
Appeal No. 94-2054
Application 07/827,680
-4-
brake pressure control signals. The examiner’s Answer does
not address that submission.
Appellants’ submission appears to demonstrate that
the claimed subject matter is supported by an enabling
disclosure. The examiner provides no reason why that is not
so. We will not sustain the rejection.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of Claims 2-7 is reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JAMES T. CARMICHAEL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 94-2054
Application 07/827,680
-5-
Felfe & Lynch
805 Third Ave.
New York, NY 10022