Appeal No. 96-0998
Application No. 08/180,288
Claim 1. Examiner’s Answer at 6-7 and 11. We agree with the
examiner.
Although Tognola uses his motion detector to detect
vibrations in a jet engine, Tognola states that it may also be
used to advantage in a large number of other applications.
Column 1, line 64 through column 2, line 2. We agree with the
examiner that detecting vibration versus detecting impact is only
a matter of degree and the difference was suggested by Tognola.
Tognola specifically teaches appreciable adjustment of the
spacing between a fixed magnet and the neutral position of
moveable magnet 54. Column 3, line 70, through column 4, line 2.
One skilled in the art would understand that teaching as a
suggestion to vary the sensitivity of the motion detector for
other applications including detecting large movements.
Appellant attempts to distinguish Tognola on the basis that
Tognola’s moveable magnet and coil are continuously flux coupled.
Appeal Brief at 7, line 26, through 8, line 14. However, this
distinction is not recited in the claim.
Claims undergoing examination are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and
limitations appearing in the specification are not to be read
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007