Appeal No. 1998-2867
Application No. 08/362,747
Similar to claim 81, claim 97 recites transmitting to a
first input of a time measuring device a test signal and to a
second input the same test signal after it has been delayed by
passing through the sensor being checked for faults. As we
have already determined that Leiber fails to disclose checking
a sensor for faults, passing a test signal through the sensor,
and measuring the claimed time difference, we will reverse the
rejection of claim 97.
Claim 101, like claim 97, requires passing a test signal
through the sensor being tested for faults and measuring a
time difference (although for claim 101, the reference time is
the time the test signal is generated rather than the time it
is received at the first input). Leiber again falls short for
reasons substantially the same as those discussed supra.
Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 101.
Regarding the rejections of claims 84, 85, and 89,
neither Buchschmid (for claims 84 and 89) nor Bleckmann (for
claim 85) cures the deficiencies of Leiber noted above.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 84, 85,
and 89.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007