Appeal No. 2001-0376
Application No. 08/780,204
We disagree. Clearly, testing switches via a plot of resistance force versus
movement was known. This much is admitted by appellants in the background of their
disclosure. But the invention is in the alleged discovery by appellants that by taking the
second derivative of this plot and investigating spikes in the second derivative plot, a
good test of the tactile feel of the switch movement to an operator can be had.
Now the examiner comes along and, despite the fact that not one of the applied
secondary references is directed, in any way, to the testing of switches, holds that the
bare knowledge of secondary derivatives applied to monitored plotted data for whatever
reason would have made it obvious to the artisan to have taken the second derivative of
the plot in either Zuercher or APA.
We fail to find anything in the evidence of record, other than appellants’ own
disclosure, that would have led the artisan to modify either Zuercher or APA in such a
manner as to take the second derivative of the plots therein. Merely because technique
B was known in other environments and also process A was known, this would not have
made it obvious to apply technique B to process A without some direction or suggestion
in the prior art that there would have been some advantage or some expectation of
success in making this modification.
Although we find no motivation for making the alleged modification from any
evidence of record, even if, arguendo, the artisan were to apply the second derivative of
the plotted function in Zuercher or APA and obtain the resultant plot of the second
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007