Appeal No. 2004-0352 Page 6
Application No. 09/716,767
explained this rejection only to the extent of stating that the method steps “are readily
apparent during the operation of” the modified Ward device.
It appears from the explanation of the rejection of independent apparatus claim 9
on page 6 of the Answer that Kulite has been added to the other two references for
teaching a flight recorder that records output signals. Be that as it may, Kulite does not
overcome the defect we explained above with combining Ward and Dubuque. Thus, a
prima facie case of obviousness also is lacking here. The same can be said about the
effect of adding Kulite to Ward and Dubuque with regard to dependent claims 2, 5, 10,
11 and 13, as the examiner proposes on pages 4-7 of the Answer.
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
The manner in which the rod end and the tube are connected in the Dubuque
reference appears to be identical to that used by the appellant iN his invention.
Moreover, Dubuque specifies that the tube be composed of a material that is relatively
softer than the external screw threads on the rod end, and explains that this results in
the rod end being “fixedly secured” to the tube (Abstract), which also is one of the
objectives of the appellant’s invention (specification, page 3, lines 26-30).
This application is remanded to the examiner for consideration of further review
of the prior art in the field of sensing the force in systems wherein the movement of both
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007