Appeal No. 2001-1340
Application 08/944,885
more complicated than the claimed invention. Appellants also argue that Hogan does
not disclose the comparator and clock combination of the claimed invention which
records the duration of time in which the impact signal is above a threshold value.
Finally, appellants argue that Hogan does not disclose the displaying of elapsed time as
claimed [brief, pages 5-7].
The examiner responds that the simplicity argument does not patentably
distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. The examiner reasserts that Hogan
discloses all the elements of the claimed invention [answer, pages 4-5]. Appellants
respond that Hogan does not disclose a comparator to assess whether the impact
signal exceeds a threshold and, if it does, to trigger a clock to begin timing (i.e.,
recording the duration in seconds) upon detection of the threshold [reply brief, page 6].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of the claims on appeal. Although
we agree with the examiner that appellants’ argument regarding the simplicity of their
invention compared to the Hogan device is not relevant to a rejection based on
anticipation, we also agree with appellants that the examiner has failed to find all the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007