Appeal No. 1998-2867
Application No. 08/362,747
As pointed out by appellant (Brief, page 8), Leiber does
not detect faults in a sensor, but rather detects faults in
the control units of an antilocking brake system. Further,
the test signal of Leiber never passes through the sensor.
Although the examiner asserts that transducer 11 is a sensor
and that the test signal passes therethrough, as indicated by
appellant (Reply Brief, pages 2-3), transducer 11 is merely an
analog-to-digital converter, not a sensor. Even by the
examiner's own definition of the term "sensor" (Answer, page
5), transducer 11 cannot be a sensor, since it merely receives
a signal from a sensor element 10 but does not sense any
physical stimulus.
In addition, despite the examiner's assertions to the
contrary (Answer, page 4) appellant correctly indicates
(Brief, page 9) that Leiber does not measure the time
difference between when the first input receives the test
signal and when the second input receives the delayed test
signal. Leiber compares the sequences of pulses output by two
substantially identical control units and is not concerned at
all with the amount of delay through the sensor. In fact, as
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007