Appeal No. 97-0604
Application 08/306,766
the recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied
Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385,
388 (Fed. Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L.
Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554,
220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984).
Each of Macy and Florida teaches an inertial
transducer, similar to the transducer of the claimed
invention, in which acceleration is measured as the result of
a vibratory element in the transducer. The examiner points
out the teachings of Macy and Florida and notes that each of
them uses an automatic gain control (AGC) circuit which
receives the power supply voltage [answer, pages 3-4].
Appellant responds that Macy and Florida are examples
of the admitted prior art, and that neither of them suggests
using the power supply as a reference voltage for the AGC
circuit or making the output signal proportional to the supply
voltage in any way [brief, pages 4-9]. Additionally,
appellant points out that each of the independent claims has a
limitation in the form of a means or step responsive to the
power supply voltage for controlling the drive circuit so that
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007