Appeal No. 2007-0067
Application No. 10/202,097
find that Kawabe teaches or suggests all of the limitations of claims 1, 5, 6
and 10.
We next consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 through 4 and
7 through 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Kawabe in
view of Kawasaki. These claims are all dependent upon either independent
claim 1 or 6. As discussed supra we do not find that Kawabe teaches or
suggests the limitations of claim 1. The Examiner has not asserted nor do
we find that Kawasaki teaches learning a position in the manner claimed in
claims 1 or 6. While we find that Kawasaki teaches learning a reference
position, we do not find a teaching or suggestion of learning the position
using a high gain until a temporary reference position is reached and then
using a lower gain, as recited in claims 1 and 6. Thus, we do not reach the
issue of whether Kawasaki teaches the claim limitations directed to ending
the reference position learning, as we do not find that the combination of the
references teach or suggest all of the limitations of the independent claim
which claims 2 through 4 and 7 through 9 depend.
Conclusions
We consider the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 5, 6 and 10 to be
in error as we do not find that Kawabe teaches or suggests learning a
position value in the manner claimed. Similarly, we consider the
Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2 through 4 and 7 through 9 to be
in error as we do not find that the combination of Kawabe and Kawasaki
teach or suggest the limitations of independent claims 1 and 6.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013