Appeal No. 2001-1541 Page 6
Application No. 09/094,297
prior art, process input signals in accordance with
predetermined logic rules to generate command output signals.
The examiner's position is that claims 1 and 9 are
anticipated by Dierker since the use of a "rail vehicle" is
inherent. We do not agree. We have reviewed Dierker's
disclosure and fail to find any disclosure of a rail vehicle
or a rail vehicle wheel truck. In fact, we fail to find any
disclosure of any of the elements recited in claims 1 or 9.
In that regard, while Dierker does disclose a distance sensor
and a processor for receiving signals from the distance
sensor, the distance sensor in Dierker is not positioned on a
rail vehicle as claimed and the processor does not determine
rotation magnitude and rotation direction of the rail vehicle
wheel truck with respect to the rail vehicle.
For the reasons set forth above, all the limitations of
claims 1 and 9 are not found in Dierker. Accordingly, the
decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 and 9, and claim 3
dependent on claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007