Appeal No. 1997-0558
Application 08/013,813
page 2 of their Reply Brief, that in Lizell "any gain adjustment is based on velocity frequency" and that
"[t]here is no teaching nor even the remote suggestion of controlling the gain of a variable []gain [sic]
amplifier in response to a frequency of variations of a determined difference between a sensed
operating characteristic and desired operating characteristic" as claimed.
We agree with appellants that "even if combined, none of the four references used by the
Examiner [Kurosawa, Doi ‘632, Doi ‘650, and Lizell] teaches use of a variable gain amplifier means for
outputting an actuation control signal where the gain of the amplifier is controlled in response to
frequency variations of a difference value of operating characteristics" (Brief, page 14) (emphasis in
original). Because none of the applied references teaches this salient feature which is recited in each of
claims 1 to 26 on appeal, and because each of the rejections of claims 1 to 26 on appeal relies upon
these four base references, we cannot sustain the rejections of claims 1 to 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 19, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 over Kurosawa, Doi ‘632, Doi ‘650, and Lizell is reversed.
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 3 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kurosawa,
Doi ‘632, Doi ‘650, Lizell, and Williams is reversed.
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 23, 24, and 26 under
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007