Appeal No. 2003-0552
Application 09/190,318
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims, to
the applied prior art Fernandez patent and the APA, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner.
As a consequence of our review, we have made the determination
that the examiner’s rejection of claims 19, 23, 27 and 31 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will not be sustained. Our reasons follow.
The examiner’s position in the final rejection (Paper No.
19, pages 2-3) is that the APA discloses an apparatus as set
forth in, for example, parent claim 17, except that the APA does
not disclose at least one sensor as required in the penultimate
clause of claim 17 and a computer which uses the values measured
by said sensor to determine control commands to create control
objectives. However, the examiner is of the view that Fernandez
discloses a sensor and computer as required in appellant’s
claims, e.g., claim 17, “in figure 5 and on lines 18-67, on
column 7.” From such teachings, the examiner concludes that
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to use the sensor and
computer determining control commands of Fernandez in the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007