Reply Brief in Support of KSR's Motion for Summary ... - Fried Frank

just in case there could be an arguent that claim 15 does not cover thè control of a brakesystem. Accordingly, claim 24 isallowable for the same reasons claim 15 was allowed inparent patent 6,109,241" (see Exhibit 6 hereto, at 3).-- The prosecution history of the "parent patent 6,109,241" exhibits the samepattern as the prosecution history ofthe '565 Patent: Teleflex originally fied claimsreciting "an adjustable pedal assembly (22)" in combination with "an ~lectronic throttlecontrol attached to said support (18)" (see Exhibit 7 hereto, at 7); the claims, as originallyfied, were declared unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view ofRedding and priorar showing that "it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to aperson having ordinary skill in the ar to provide the device ofRedding with theelectronic throttle control means attached to a support member" (see Exhibit 8 hereto);and once again, without disagreeing, at all, with the Examier's reasoning or conclusionsas to the obviousness and unpatentabilty ofmodifyng Redding to include an off-theshelfpedal position sensor, Teleflex amended what became Claim 15 of the parent '241Patent to exclude the Redding design from its coverage through addition of the claimlanguage, "wherein the position of said pivot (24) remains constant while said pedal arm(14) moves in fore and aft directions with respect to said pivot (24)" (see Exhbit 9hereto, at 2).-- Durng the prosecution ofthe '565 Patent and its parent, Teleflex submittedthree (3) separate InformationDisdosure Statements ("IDS's") purorting to discloseprior ar of which Teleflex and its patent counsel were aware (see Exhbit 10 hereto). Innot one of those statements did Teleflex disclose U.S. Patent No. 5,010,782 to Asano("Asano") or U.S. Patent No. 5,722,302 to Rixon ("Rixon '302"), notwithstanding that (a)7