Appeal No. 2002-1911 Page 14
Application No. 09/598,087
the art at the time the invention was made to modify Mehney based on the teachings of
Kiuchi to arrive at the claimed invention.
The appellant in the brief (pp. 7-8) and reply brief (pp. 3-4) set forth his rationale
as to why one skilled in the art would not have modified Mehney based on the
teachings of Kiuchi to arrive at the claimed invention. We agree.
Mehney specifically teaches providing first and second strain gauges 81 and 82
mounted on an upper surface 90 of the flexible portion 68 of mounting member 20 and
third and fourth strain gauges 83 and 84 mounted on a lower surface 92 of the flexible
portion 68 at locations directly beneath the first and second strain gauges 81 and 82.
Thus, when a vehicle occupant sits on seat 12, the flexible portions 68 of the mounting
members 20 bend into S-shaped configurations causing the first and fourth strain
gauges 81 and 84 to be placed in compression and the second and third strain gauges
82 and 83 to be simultaneously placed in tension.
We have reviewed the teachings of Kiuchi directed to the use of strain gages on
a cantilever beam and find no suggestion or motivation therein for an artisan to have
modified Mehney to arrive at the claimed invention. The mere fact that the prior art
could be modified in the manner suggested by the examiner does not make such a
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007