Appeal No. 1997-1075
Application No. 08/335,084
Appellants argue, inter alia, that the reference does not disclose or suggest the processor means
which includes the requirements of the “means for determining [the] load,” as set forth in independent
Claims 1 and 3, respectively. (See Brief, pages 8 and 14.)
The examiner has not dealt with the requirements of each of the “processing means” set forth in
the independent claims. Although there is discussion between appellants and the examiner regarding the
differences between “relative” and “absolute” pressure transducers, the examiner has failed to show
how the specific requirements of the claims might be disclosed or suggested by the prior art, whether
using “relative” or “absolute” transducers. The evidence presented by the examiner is not sufficient to
support a case of prima facie obviousness of the claimed invention. Accordingly, the rejection of
Claims 1, 3-15, and 17 is reversed.
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007