Appeal No. 2007-0067
Application No. 10/202,097
establish why one having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the
claimed invention by the express teachings or suggestions found in the prior
art, or by the implications contained in such teachings or suggestions. In re
Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Analysis
The first issue we consider concerns limitations in both independent
claims 1 and 6. Claim 1 recites an apparatus which includes means “for
detecting the position of a positioning object … generating a target position
signal … setting a temporary target position of said positioning object, and
learning a reference position.” Claim 5 recites similar limitations.
Thus, each independent claim recites limitations directed to a device
that detects a position of an object, generates a temporary target position and
learns a reference position. Appellant’s specification discusses a learned
position as a position which is determined based upon the operation of the
object being controlled and is later used in controlling the object. See pages
1 and 2 of Appellant’s specification.
As discussed supra we find that Kawabe teaches a system which
controls speed and position. Kawabe teaches that positions between X1 and
X2 can be calculated (interpolated). However, we do not find that this is a
learning process as claimed. Further, though Kawabe teaches that the value
for X1 must be initially determined, to a minimum gap that can bring about
an effectiveness of the electromagnetic force, we do not find that the
determination is made in the manner claimed. Nor do we find that Kawabe
suggests learning a position value in the manner claimed. Thus, we do not
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013