Appeal No. 1998-1644
Application No. 08/494,516
In any event, independent claim 1 requires that the magnetic sensor output a signal
in accordance with the passing of teeth “in a specific range” of the ring gear and that the
specific range is “set so as not to overlap with a wear region of the ring gear teeth which is
worn due to engagement with said pinion.” Independent claim 7 calls for a “specific
angular range” of the ring gear and the sensor “displaced such that said specific angular
range and said wear region do not overlap.” If we understand the examiner correctly, as
outlined on page 8 of the answer, he has taken the position that because Lotterbach
detects teeth all along a ring gear, then it detects teeth in both a wear region and in a non-
wear region and, accordingly, detects teeth in at least a non-wear region, meeting the
claim limitations. The examiner has explicitly said that there is “no limitation...stating that
the signal which is outputted outside the wear region is the only signal to be outputted.” If,
indeed, we read the examiner’s position correctly, it is clearly an untenable position in view
of the language in both independent claims which explicitly excludes wear regions; i.e., the
“specific range” and the “wear region” must not overlap. Thus, the sensor must not output a
signal in the wear region of the ring gear in accordance with the claimed subject matter.
Since the examiner has provided us with no evidence that either of the applied
references teaches or suggests that a magnetic sensor outputs a signal according to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007