Appeal No. 2004-0546
Application No. 09411793
rack disclosed by Ewing. Manifestly, the concept underpinning
the claimed invention, employing the linear displacement of a
rack to impart rotary motion, was well-known in the mechanical
arts, as evidenced by Ewing. We see nothing unobvious in
appellants' selection of a rotary potentiometer as the recipient
of the linear displacement of a rack, particularly since it was
known in the art to use a rotary potentiometer to determine the
position of a rotary valve member. Appellants have apprised us
of no rationale why it would have been unobvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify Ewing by coupling a rotary
potentiometer to the rack as presently claimed.
Appellants maintain that "the Examiner gave no reason why one
having ordinary skill in the art would modify Kawai to include a
linearizing mechanism" (page 9 of Brief, second paragraph).
However, the issue on appeal framed by the examiner's rejection is
not modifying Kawai to include a linearizing mechanism, but
modifying Ewing to include a rotary potentiometer of the type
disclosed by Kawai. Likewise, appellants' argument that "[t]here
is no suggestion in Kawai with respect to using linear measure-
ments to determine angular (or rotational) valve position" misses
the thrust of the examiner's rejection (page 10 of Brief, second
paragraph). The requisite suggestion of using linear displacement
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007