Appeal No. 1999-1054 Page 5
Application No. 08/889,594
[t]he inputs for the inverse model (15) in
Appellant’s invention are the speed sensor feedback y
and the reference force Fc. In Renault’s patent the
inputs are speed sensor feedback and force sensor
feedback (Brief, page 12, emphasis added).
That is, in the appellants’ invention the signal generated in
the inverse model to control the damping utilizes a reference
force signal rather than an indication of the actual force
sensed at the actuator (although a signal related to the actual
force may be added downstream), whereas the Renault system
utilizes the actual force signal in the inverse model portion
of the control system. The practical effect of this, according
to the appellants, is that a failure of the means for supplying
the actual force signal does not cause the actuator damping
system to fail, for the reference signal is still present,
although a slight error may result (Brief, pages 4 and 16).
Renault therefore fails to disclose or teach one of the
elements of claim 1, and thus cannot be anticipatory of the
claim. The rejection of claims 1 and 3 is not sustained.
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 2, 4 and 5-8 stand rejected as being unpatentable
over the combined teachings of Karnopp and Renault. Claim 2
adds an accumulator to claim 1. It is the examiner’s position
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007