Appeal No. 1998-2768
Application No. 08/520,802
conventional Wheatstone bridge does not require a strain gauge
or “four strain gauges” as is urged by the examiner on page 4
of the answer. In our view, the examiner’s position regarding
the Airy patent is entirely based on speculation, conjecture
and impermissible hindsight derived from first having viewed
appellants’ disclosure and claim.
As for the Robotics text pointed to by the examiner
(answer, page 6), we note that this reference specifically
seeks to detect the deflection of the fingers of a robotic
gripper in response to an applied force, a problem not
addressed or confronted by the apparatus of Airy. Thus, while
there exists the possibility that a Wheatstone bridge may
include a strain gauge, such knowledge alone would not, in our
opinion, have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
understand the Airy patent as including a strain
gauge, or to any modification of the brace and exercise
apparatus of Airy so as to allow the orthopedic apparatus
therein to be used to monitor and permit optimization of
isometric exercises done against the restraining device.
Based on the foregoing, the examiner’s rejection of claim
41
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007