Appeal No. 2001-1541 Page 4
Application No. 09/094,297
The anticipation rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3 and 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b), it must be shown that each element of the claim is
found, either expressly described or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Claims 1 and 9 read as follows:
1. An apparatus for providing information on rail
vehicle positions comprising in operative combination:
a first rail vehicle wheel truck pivotally coupled
to said rail vehicle;
a first distance sensor associated with said rail
vehicle and said truck, said first distance sensor
measuring a horizontal distance from a side portion of
said truck to a facing side portion of said rail vehicle
and generating rotation signals in response to said
measured horizontal distance; and
a rotation signal processor for receiving said
rotation signals and determining from said rotation
signals horizontal rotation directions and rotation
magnitudes of said truck with respect to said rail
vehicle.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007