Appeal No. 1999-0424
Application 08/298,552
call the tip of the finger the base of the finger defies logic
and common sense. Everyone understands that the base of a
finger appears at the palm of the hand. The examiner’s per se
rule that change of location is not patentable is also
erroneous. The examiner should not substitute per se rules
for a full consideration of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The examiner has not properly considered the obviousness of
locating the claimed shock detecting means at the base of a
finger as claimed.
The examiner’s position that the pressure or
acceleration sensing means of Prince is the same as the
claimed shock detecting means is also erroneous. These
variables must be measured differently and have different
characteristics as argued by appellants.
Finally, we agree with appellants that the wave energy
in Prince is not the same as generating a signal having a
predetermined frequency component which is representative of
the shock transmitted through the finger when the fingertip
strikes a surface.
All of these erroneous findings of the examiner result
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007