Appeal No. 1998-0378
Application No. 08/705,063
material. Again the examiner recognizes that Dufrane is
deficient in that Dufrane fails to teach "that a voltage is
generated in accordance with an impact force such that a crack
is detected by monitoring said voltage." The examiner
nonetheless concludes (Answer, pages 3-4) that the skilled
artisan would have found it obvious "to monitor a voltage of
the conductive element instead of the resistance of the
conductive element to detect cracks ... [because] both voltage
and resistance monitoring are well known electrical measuring
methods."
We agree that both voltage and resistance monitoring are
known electrical measuring methods. However, merely that both
were known does not render obvious the substitution of one for
another. As pointed out by appellants (Brief, page 5), the
examiner has failed to provide any motivation from the prior
art for using a voltage generating layer rather than a
resistance layer. Thus, the examiner has failed to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness. Consequently, we cannot
sustain the rejection of claim 8 nor its dependents, claims 9
through 14.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007