Appeal No. 96-0949
Application 08/236,091
we can find no reason that it would have been obvious to do so
within 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In view of these findings, we are left without a teaching
reference to meet the limitations of representative
independent claim 26 on appeal providing a means for detecting
and holding the peak analog output signals of the magnetic
sensor during a time a threshold output signal is present and,
in addition, the subsequent comparing of this peak analog
signal to a second predetermined value as both required by
both independent claims on appeal. None of the other two
references relied upon teaches this feature. Van Husen would
have been desirably combinable with the system of Laib since
Van Husen teaches testing Hall effect devices which are
specifically utilized in the Laib system. However, Van Husen
fails to teach or suggest the noted detection and holding of
peak analog signals and their comparison to a second
predetermined value.
Therefore, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the
examiner rejecting representative independent claim 26 on
appeal is reversed. Since the subject matter of independent
claim 21 tracks that of claim 26, the rejection of this claim
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007