Ex parte BOICHOT et al. - Page 5




          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