Appeal No. 1998-2867
Application No. 08/362,747
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 29,
mailed August 19, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to appellant's Brief (Paper
Nos. 25 and 28, filed April 14, 1997 and July 14, 1997,
respectively) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 30, filed September
25, 1997) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejections of claims
81 through 85, 89, 97, and 101.
Independent claim 81 requires, in pertinent part, a time
measuring device which receives, at a first input, a test
signal and, at a second input, the same test signal after it
has been delayed by passing through the sensor being checked
for faults. In other words, the test signal must pass through
a sensor along one path to the time measuring device and must
go directly to the time measuring device along a second path.
Then, the time measuring device measures the time difference
between the test signal received at the two inputs.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007