Appeal No. 96-0998
Application No. 08/180,288
8. Obviousness over Warner and Valentini
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Warner in view of Valentini.
Examiner’s Answer at 10. The position of the examiner is the
same as discussed above in paragraph 5. Examiner’s Answer at 10,
lines 1-5. Appellant argues that Warner makes no suggestion of
the environment of the sensor. Appeal Brief at 11, lines 7-10.
With respect to Claim 13, Valentini suggests use of a motion
sensor in a motor vehicle, column 4, lines 23-28, and Warner
teaches that his vibration sensor can be modified for a wide
range of applications including sensing shocks and jerks. Column
5, lines 21-40. We agree with the examiner that it would have
been obvious to use Warner’s sensor as an impact sensor in a
motor vehicle as suggested by Valentini. Therefore, the
rejection of Claim 13 is sustained.
However, for the reasons set forth above in paragraph 5, we
will not sustain the rejection of Claim 14.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of Claim 13, but not the
rejection of Claim 14, over Warner and Valentini.
18
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007