Ex parte BOICHOT et al. - Page 7

          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