Appeal No. 1998-3081
Application No. 08/587,292
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to seek a
solution to or reduction in switch contact bounce. The skilled artisan would have found the
teachings of Jenkins relative to various methodologies to reduce bounce in reed switches
and would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Jenkins into the sensor of
Andres. (See answer at pages 3-4.) We agree with the examiner.
Appellant argues the differences between the reed switches of Jenkins alone and the
invention as recited in claim 1. (See brief at page 4.) This argument is not persuasive.
Appellant argues that Jenkins must be read for its entire disclosure. We agree with
appellant. Appellant further argues that Jenkins does not lead to an expectation that
twisted contacts will function adequately in a reed switch. While we agree with appellant,
we note that Jenkins discloses that the limitation with twisted contacts in a reed switch is
that the minimum closing current must be increased. With the teaching that twisted
contacts “can be very effective in reducing bounce” (see Jenkins at page 1621; section
4.4.4) and no requirement for any closing current in a shock sensor, skilled artisans would
have been motivated to form the contacts of Andres with a twist to reduce bounce.
Appellant argues that Jenkins discloses that twisting contacts is of limited effectiveness in
a reed switch. (See brief at page 5.) While we agree with respect to the current
requirements, Jenkins is clear that the orientation is effective in reducing bounce, as
discussed above.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007