Appeal No. 1997-3088
Application No. 08/521,562
sensing elements, or strain gauges...” [column 4, lines 36-37] and Crawley does suggest,
at column 2, lines 50-51, that in a preferred embodiment, a “plurality of strain gauges are
embedded at selected locations.” Thus, while the sensors (10) in Crawley’s Figure 2 are
not specifically disclosed as being embedded, there is at least a suggestion, within the
Crawley reference, that they may be.
In any event, we will reverse the rejection of the independent claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) because closer examination of the instant claim language, as reasonably
interpreted in light of the specification, persuades us that Crawley simply does not disclose
the claimed “patch.”
The instant claims call for a “pre-formed control patch” which is placed “in operative
relationship with the foundation member.” That language, as reasonably interpreted in light
of the specification, means that the patch is formed some time prior to affixation to the
foundation member and that the patch, as a separate unit, distinct from the foundation
member to which it is attached, is then attached, at some later time, to the foundation unit.
Even if we assume, arguendo, that elements (10) and (14), along with their
embedding material, form the claimed “control patch” and even if we assume that this
patch is, somehow, separate from structural member, or “foundation member,” (6), of
Crawley, Crawley still cannot meet the instant claim language because the “patch” in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007