Appeal No. 1998-2513
Application No. 08/171,427
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 21) and the Examiner's Answer (Paper
No. 28) for a statement of the examiner's position and to the Brief (Paper No. 27) for
appellant’s position with respect to the claims which stand rejected.2
OPINION
Grouping of Claims
Claims 1, 5, and 12 are independent. Appellant submits separate arguments for
each of claims 1 and 5, separate arguments for claims 10-13 and 15 as a group, and
separate arguments for claims 9 and 14 as a group. Appellant also provides additional
arguments for independent claims 1, 5, and 12 as a group. We consider each of the
arguments in turn. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7).
Claim 1 (independent)
In the statement of the rejection, the examiner refers to prior art Figure 3 of
appellant’s specification. The APA “does not use a feedback loop with the measured
speed.” (Final Rejection, page 3.) “In contrast, Takeda. [sic] adds the measured speed to
the target error in order to derive an improved value for both error figures.” (Id.) However,
2In making our determinations we have not considered a Reply Brief, filed September 24, 1997
(Paper No. 30), which was refused entry by the examiner.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007