Appeal No. 1997-0558
Application 08/013,813
At the outset, we note that, in accordance with appellants’ statement at page 4 of the principal
brief, appellants make no objection to claims 1 to 26 being grouped together for purposes of this
appeal. Thus, we are in agreement with the examiner’s statement at the top of page 2 of the Answer,
that all of the claims on appeal stand or fall together. We select claim 1 as being representative of
claims 1 to 26, all of the claims on appeal. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7).
Representative claim 1 on appeal specifically requires a "control means having a variable gain
amplifier means for outputting said actuator control signal, wherein the gain of said variable gain
amplifier means is controlled in response to a frequency of variations of said determined difference"
(claim 1) (emphasis added). The examiner admits that the primary reference to Kurosawa "does not
disclose variable gain of the amplifier in response to a frequency of variation of the predetermined
difference as claimed" (Answer, pages 3 to 4). The examiner cites Doi ‘632 and Doi ‘650 as teaching
variable gain amplifiers in vehicle suspension control systems (Answer, page 4), and relies upon Lizell to
teach or suggest adaptive control. The examiner then asserts that Lizell "obvious[ly][sic] implies the
adaptive control circuit adjusts the gains in response to the frequency of variation of the determined
difference" (Answer, pages 4 to 5), and therefore "[t]he prior art clearly disclose the claimed feature of
adjusting gain in response to a frequency of variation of the difference signal" (Answer, page 5). We
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007