Appeal No. 1999-1607
Application No. 08/820,238
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1
through 3.
According to the examiner (final rejection, page 2):
Sato discloses the claimed invention except for the
driving circuitry is not supported on one of the
plates which form the capacitive sensor. Bell teaches
that it is known to form the driving circuitry on one
of the plates which form the capacitive sensor (Col.
8, ln.s 12-21). It would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to form the driving
circuitry of the weight sensor of Sato on one of the
capacitive plates of the sensor, as taught by Bell, to
save space.
In response to the examiner’s rejection, appellant argues
(brief, page 4) that the electrical components 12 in Bell’s
device are not mounted in the claimed manner because they are
located on an extension 17 that is adjacent to the
diaphragm/capacitor plate 18.
In rebuttal, the examiner indicates (answer, page 5) that
“even if the claim language could be interpreted to limit the
applicant’s claimed invention to an embodiment where the circuit
components of the force sensor of the present invention are
located on the backside of a part of the moving plate which
actually moves rather than on an integral extension of the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007