Appeal No. 96-0998
Application No. 08/180,288
line 5. No argument is presented with respect to this rejection.
Appeal Brief at 5-16. Because Appellant does not contest it,3
this rejection is affirmed.
3. Obviousness over Tognola
Claims 1, 7, 10 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Tognola. Examiner’s Answer at
6-7. These claims stand or fall together because appellant has
not argued them separately. Appeal Brief at 5-9 and 14-15.
Appellant argues that Tognola discloses a continuous
vibration pick up and does not suggest an impact sensor providing
an impulse voltage only in response to a predetermined impact
force and having the coil positioned between the magnets so that
the moveable magnet does not enter the coil until impact occurs.
Appeal Brief at 5-9 and 14-15. The examiner contends that
Tognola suggests sensing a level of movement from a transmitted
voltage due to a magnet’s movement in a coil toward an opposing
fixed magnet and rendered obvious the impact sensor recited in
3 Appellants submitted an amendment (Paper No. 18,
dated April 28, 1995) with the Appeal Brief in order to address
the rejection of Claims 15-17. Appeal Brief at 12, lines 4-9.
However, this amendment has not been entered. Examiner’s Answer
at 2, line 6. Therefore, the amendment does not affect the
disposition of this appeal.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007