Appeal No. 1996-4124
Application No. 08/307,088
reasons we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 20, 21,
26, 28 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Hahn and Loehrke.
We next consider the rejection of claims 16 through 19,
22, 24, 25 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Hahn, Loehrke and Hernandez. On pages 4 and 6 of the
answer, the Examiner states it would have been obvious to use
an accelerometer as a load or force sensor to measure force,
as Hernandez teaches accelerometers provide more detailed and
accurate results.
Appellant argues on page 13 of the brief that Hernandez
does not teach measuring the displacement of a toothed wheel
supporting means which is caused by a grinding force on a
tooth as is claimed in claim 16. On page 3 of the reply
brief, Appellant makes similar arguments concerning the
application of Hernandez to claim 19.
We note that claim 27 also contains the limitation of
measuring the displacement of a toothed wheel supporting means
which is caused by a grinding force on a tooth as is claimed
and claim 17 is dependent upon claim 16.
22
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007