Appeal No. 1998-1364
Application 08/722,384
contraction (stretching) of the surface of diaphragm 16 in
Huck due to temperature (the physical condition) results in a
membrane stress, which is sensed by the temperature sensors.
That is, it has not been shown that membrane stress, broadly,
is limited to stress produced by bending. Appellants'
arguments are based on membrane stress being caused by bending
due to physical conditions, which is not claimed.
Appellants argue that "the Huck pressure sensor does not
address the problem of sensor nonlinearity due to membrane
stress" (Br7) and operates in a fundamentally different way
(Br7). However, claim 1 does not recite a solution to this
problem; it merely recites a transducer at a particular
location. We are not persuaded that claim 1, as broadly
worded, distinguishes over Huck.
In summary, Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of
error in the finding of anticipation of claim 1. Claims 10-13
are said to be allowable for the reasons stated with respect
to claim 1 (Br9), which does not constitute an argument of
separate patentability. Thus, claims 10-13 fall with claim 1.
The rejections of claims 1 and 10-13 are sustained.
Claims 2-9
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007