Ex parte BHARDWAJ - Page 2




          Appeal No. 97-0604                                                          
          Application 08/306,766                                                      


          all the claims in the application.  An amendment after final                


          rejection was filed on March 18, 1996 and was entered by the                
          examiner.                                                                   
          The disclosed invention pertains to a method and                            
          apparatus for causing the output voltage of an inertial                     
          transducer to be linearly proportional to the power supply                  
          voltage.                                                                    
          Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:                            
               1.  In an inertial transducer: a vibratory element, a                  
          drive circuit for applying a drive signal to the vibratory                  
          element, a pickup circuit coupled to the vibratory element for              
          providing an output signal corresponding to movement of the                 
          vibratory element, a power supply for supplying an operating                
          voltage to the drive circuit, and means responsive to the                   
          power supply voltage for controlling the drive circuit so that              
          the drive signal and the output signal are proportional to the              
          supply voltage.                                                             

          The examiner relies on the following references:                            
          Macy et al. (Macy)           4,930,351          June 05, 1990               
          Florida et al. (Florida)     5,426,970          June 27, 1995               
          (filed Aug. 02, 1993)                                                       
          Claims 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as                      
          being anticipated by the disclosure of Macy.  Claims 1-10 also              
          stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated                

                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007