Ex parte GOMES et al. - Page 3


                    Appeal No. 1997-0961                                                                                                     
                    Application No. 08/254,654                                                                                               




                    transducer 14 is a linear variable differential transformer (LVDT).  The examiner nevertheless                           
                    takes the position that he Ais not familiar with any other inductive displacement transducers                            
                    other than an LVDT@ (final office action, page 2).  He also takes the position that A[i]t would                          
                    have been obvious in view of Fales that the >inductive displacement transducer= of Schwelm                               
                    would have been [sic, is?] an LVDT, since the LVDT is the most widely used form of inductive                             
                    displacement transducer known in the valve position sensing art@ (final office action, page 2).                          
                             Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that Schwelm=s transducer 14 is not an                           
                    LVDT, we are satisfied that the teachings of Fales would have made it obvious to substitute an                           
                    LVDT for Schwelm=s transducer 14 because of the known advantages of an LVDT.                                             
                    Furthermore, we are satisfied that, as described in column 2, lines 11-31 of the Schwelm                                 
                    specification, transducer 14 forms a part of a closed loop circuit, presumably to supply the                             
                    disclosed input signal to magnet 4.  We nonetheless cannot sustain the ' 103 rejection of the                            
                    appealed claims.                                                                                                         
                             In the present case, the examiner does not take the position that it would have been                            
                    obvious to provide Schwelm=s closed loop circuit with a comparator means and a deviation                                 
                    control means to meet the terms of claim 2.  Instead, as noted supra, the examiner contends that                         
                    Schwelm=s closed loop control circuit inherently includes such a comparator means and a                                  
                    deviation control means.                                                                                                 
                             In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or                       
                    technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent features                         
                    necessarily flow from the teachings of the applied reference.  See                                                       
                    Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (BPAI 1990) and cases cited therein.                                                 
                             Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that closed loop control circuits having                         
                    comparator and deviation control circuits are well known as asserted by the examiner on page 4                           


                                         3                                                                                                   




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007