Appeal No. 1997-4050
Application 08/535,317
teach the second control means of the claims. It is argued that
the second control means induces a second force field for uses
other than responding to the sensed displacement of the mass,
which is what Henrion does. It is asserted that only appellants
have disclosed using the second force field to effect the caging,
calibration, characterization and compensation of a transducer.
We are not persuaded by appellants’ argument and will sustain
the rejection of these claims. It is considered that appellants’
argument is not commensurate in scope with the claim language in
that none of the above functions, caging etc., are recited in the
claims. Claim 1 recites a “second control means for inducing a
second force field near said movable member in accordance with a
predetermined stimulus.” With respect to Henrion’s Figure 13,
force conducting areas 92’, which have voltage V applied thereto,
qq
and force conducting areas 92, which have the output of generator
130 applied thereto, are a second control means for inducing a
second force field near movable member 36 (col. 13, line 58 to
col. 14, line 4). The voltage amplitudes are a stimulus which is
predetermined by a user and the electric field produced thereby is
2
a second force field .
2In the alternative, plates 92’ alone can be considered the second control means of claim 1.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007