Appeal No. 1999-1054 Page 7
Application No. 08/889,594
Dependent claim 2 includes, of course, all of the subject
matter recited in claim 1. As we concluded above in discussing
the rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Renault, this
reference fails to disclose all of the subject matter of claim
1. Our view on that matter is not altered by considering
Renault in the light of the guidance provided by our reviewing
court with respect to the matter of obviousness. That is, not
only does Renault not teach providing means for supplying a
generated reference force signal to the inverse model, but no
suggestion is seen which would have motivated one of ordinary
skill in the art to modify Renault to do so. This deficiency
is not cured by considering the teachings of Karnopp.
The rejection of claim 2 therefore is not sustained. Nor,
it follows, will we sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 5-8,
which depend from claim 2.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007