Appeal No. 1997-0558
Application 08/013,813
cannot agree with the examiner’s leap of logic as to Lizell, and we find that the examiner has failed to
show that Lizell would have taught or suggested the salient feature of appellants’ representative claim 1
on appeal of controlling gain "in response to a frequency of variations of said determined difference" as
recited.
Appellants argue that "[n]o disclosure nor suggestion is made by Lizell [’419] of a variable gain
amplifier for providing an actuator control signal in which the gain is controlled in response to a
frequency of variations of a determined difference signal" (Brief, page 11) (emphasis in original), as
required by representative claim 1 on appeal. We agree, and we find that this feature is neither taught
nor would have been suggested by Lizell, taken singly or in any combination with the other applied
references. We have carefully reviewed all of the portions of Lizell cited by the examiner as teaching or
suggesting controlling gain in response to a determined difference, and we do not find, as the examiner
asserts, that "the adaptive loop controls the vehicle suspension in response to the frequency of variation
of the difference" (Answer, page 12) (emphasis added).
Specifically, Lizell’s adaptive loop 240 has a disturbance identifier 242 which sets a variable
gain for each vehicle corner "which is based on the frequency and amplitude of the estimated
suspension velocities" (column 19, lines 25 to 26). Thus, we find that Lizell controls the variable gain in
relation to the frequency of only a desired operating characteristic, and not a difference between a
desired and a measured operating characteristic. Thus, we agree with appellants’ cogent statement at
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007