Appeal No. 96-2143
Application 08/046,056
the art would have been motivated to utilize an accelerometer
with the Froeschle actuator since an accelerometer was, at the
time of the present invention, a control alternative in the
art, as exemplified by the Ivers’ disclosure.
This panel of the board is not in accord with appellant’s
view that combining Froeschle with Ivers might yield at least
an
accelerometer controlled actuator system “ but not a low
force, high frequency opposed system” (main brief, page 8).
The patent to Froeschle clearly teaches a linear electric
motor 32 as a controllable force source such that “[a]ny
varia-
tion in force that is desired may be effected by
correspondingly varying the control signal” (column 3, lines 8
through 11). Further, Froeschle expressly points out that
control is at “all meaningful frequencies” (column 1, lines 53
through 55).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007