Appeal No. 2000-0368
Application No. 08/789,659
mere ability of the skilled artisan to be able to measure that value, if desired, does not in
our mind establish the requisite motivation to modify the teachings of Beihoff to use an
additional sensor. Therefore, we find that the examiner has not established a prima facie
case of obviousness based on the teachings of Beihoff alone, and we will not sustain the
rejection of independent claim 17 and its dependent claims 9 and 18. Similarly, we will not
sustain the rejection of independent claim 24 and dependent claims 1 and 25.
The examiner relies on the teachings of MacKenzie to suggest the use of a test line
coupled to the sensor in the same manner as said secondary line and a test signal
coupled to the sensor. (See final rejection at pages 4-5.) Appellant argues that
MacKenzie does not remedy the deficiency in Beihoff alone and that MacKenzie does not
teach or suggest the use of a test line which is coupled to a sensor in the same manner as
the secondary line. (See brief at page 19.) We agree with appellant that MacKenzie does
not remedy the deficiency noted in Beihoff alone and that MacKenzie does not teach or
suggest the use of a test line which is coupled to a sensor in the same manner as the
secondary line. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 20-23.
CONCLUSION
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007