Appeal No. 2004-0352 Page 3
Application No. 09/716,767
the Brief (Paper No. 14) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 17) for the appellant’s arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant’s specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The appellant’s invention deals with sensing the force applied to a control
actuator that moves in a longitudinal direction. In particular, the invention is directed to
attaching a control tube to the body of a force sensing transducer in such a manner as
to provide a tight, secure, and sealed juncture (specification, page 3). This is
manifested in independent apparatus claim 1 by reciting that the transducer has a body
with a free end from which extend external screw threads terminating in a plurality of
longitudinally extending grooves “to prevent rotation,” and that the tube is composed of
a material that is relatively softer than the external screw threads, and is “threadedly
coupled to the free end with the tube material located in the grooves.”
Ward discloses a force sensing transducer having a body 20 with a rotatable
shaft 24 upon which a steering wheel 10 is mounted protruding from one end. The shaft
has longitudinal splines on its outer surface, which mate with complementary splines on
the wheel so that when the wheel is rotated the shaft rotates with it. Ward explains that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007