Appeal No. 1998-1364
Application 08/722,384
just a method counterpart to claim 1, but is narrower than
claim 1 in that it specifically recites that the sensing
structure bends in response to a physical condition.
Accordingly, the broad interpretation taken with respect to
claim 1 does not apply here. The corresponding sensing
structure in Huck is the active area 17 of the diaphragm 16,
not the inactive area 34 (which does not bend). There is no
disclosure in Huck of any of the sensors R -R in the active
1 4
area 17 being at a location of substantially zero bending.
Therefore, we find that Huck does not anticipate claim 17 or
claims 15-17. The rejection of claims 15-17 is reversed.
Claims 18-22
Claim 18 recites, in part, "a sensing structure having a
first location with substantially zero bending and a second
location that bends in response to a physical condition." The
"physical condition" has to be the kind of condition that
produces bending in part of the sensing structure, e.g., a
force or pressure. However, so far, claim 18 is broad enough
to read the "first location" on the inactive area 34 of the
sensor in Huck and the "second location" on the active area 17
of Huck.
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007